Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Digital Connectivity: Rural Wales

Ben Lake: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on improving digital connectivity in rural Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Minister. Happy St David’s Day.

James Davies: Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd, and a happy St David’s Day—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.
The Government are committed to improving digital connectivity as demonstrated by our commitment to Project Gigabit, the shared rural network and, most recently, the new very hard-to-reach pilots, two of which are located in Wales.

Ben Lake: Ofcom reports that some 30,000 premises across the UK have no access to decent broadband or to a decent 4G signal, including rural areas of Ceredigion, such as Lledrod, Pennant, Talgarreg, Cribyn, Sarnau, Abermeurig and Coed-y-bryn to name but a few. Will the Minister make representations to colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that those areas are prioritised in the next iteration of Project Gigabit?

James Davies: The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. Let me reiterate that we have Project Gigabit, which is an ambitious £5 billion project to reach the hardest-to-reach areas outside of the commercial scope, and also the Alpha trials using satellites, two of which are in Snowdonia National Park. There are, as he will be aware, also opportunities through the Mid Wales growth deal. I would be happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do. With regard to mobile networks, there is the shared rural network, alongside the use of the Home Office’s extended area service infrastructure.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) is absolutely right to raise the issues that he has—he is often right, actually. I declare an interest here, Mr Speaker. In the Dysynni valley, in Gwynedd, broadband fibre was connected to premises after being a complete non-spot for so many years. Can my hon. Friend the Minister carry on with the hard work to ensure that there is gigabit connection within Cymru—Wales?

James Davies: I know that my hon. Friend is a regular visitor to Wales. He is quite right to raise the importance of broadband both to people’s modern way of life and also to business. There has been progress, but there is much more to do.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jo Stevens: Happy St David’s Day, Mr Speaker. I thank London Welsh School for such a lovely flag-raising ceremony this morning.
On the subject of digital connectivity, EU structural funds have helped our universities to deliver research, innovation and skills development across areas that the Minister’s Government consider a priority, including digital transformation. Many of these projects now face a cliff-edge as EU structural funds finish, with 60 projects in Wales due to end this year, putting around 1,000 skilled jobs at risk. What conversations has he and the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues to protect those valuable skilled jobs?

James Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She is right that academic institutions have been reliant on EU structural funding in the past. There is, of course, the shared prosperity fund coming forward, which universities will need to apply to. I know that my colleague the Secretary of State is visiting all universities across Wales. I have accompanied him to Bangor University and I have also visited Wrexham University very recently, and both are adjusting to the new landscape.

Jo Stevens: Going back to the subject of gigabit, the Government’s Project Gigabit boasts that it will deliver lightning-fast reliable broadband to every corner of the UK, but the project update that was published this week by the Minister’s Government shows that Wales has the lowest coverage of any of the home nations—just 57% compared with, for example, 73% in England and 89% in Northern Ireland. Does that not represent yet another broken promise by the Tories to Wales?

James Davies: The hon. Lady is aware that the geography and topography of Wales make digital connections more tricky than in some other areas. She is also aware that it is the Welsh Government who have been leading on the roll-out of broadband in Wales in conjunction with Building Digital UK, and I agree that more work needs to be done to improve those figures.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd, a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i chithau ac i bawb—happy St. David’s Day to everybody.
Although the Minister might blame the mountains, it is evident that poor connectivity in rural areas is clearly one of the factors holding businesses back. Another is trade barriers, particularly for Holyhead. Pre-Brexit, about 30% of all trade through the port went on to Northern Ireland from Dublin. That trade has collapsed and it is not protected by green lanes. Stena Line says that there needs to be a solution to this disparity. Can he come up with a solution to protect Holyhead from his Government’s policy?

James Davies: The right hon. Lady recently attended a debate that I responded to in Westminster Hall, where she was making the case for a freeport in Holyhead. She knows that there are opportunities, through freeports,  to boost the trade through Holyhead and other ports in Wales that are seeking the same designation. I urge her to continue that fight.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I urge his Government to come forward with news, because Wales desperately needs two freeports at least.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that Northern Ireland is in the “unbelievably special position” of having privileged access not just to the UK market, but hey, to the EU single market. That is an excellent argument for Plaid Cymru’s policy to rejoin the single market. Why is it not good enough for Wales?

James Davies: Wales voted to leave the EU quite decisively. The right hon. Lady knows that the situation in Northern Ireland is really quite different from that in Wales, and this is a carefully put together deal to accommodate that situation. I feel quite sure that the EU is not in the business of allowing what she suggests.

Healthcare Provision

Theresa Villiers: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the adequacy of NHS provision in Wales.

Marco Longhi: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the adequacy of healthcare services in Wales.

David Davies: A gaf i hefyd ddymuno dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb?—[Translation: May I also wish everyone a happy St David’s day?]
Health is a devolved matter and we therefore have no control over how the National Health Service is delivered in Wales—that is a matter for the Welsh Labour Government—but improving health outcomes for people across the UK is, of course, a priority for this Government, and we have made sure that the devolved Administrations have the funding to enable them to deliver the same high standards of care that have been delivered in England by this Conservative Government.

Theresa Villiers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a top priority for the Welsh Government should be helping the 45,000 people who are currently waiting more than two years for treatment in the NHS in Wales, rather than focusing on things such as banning meal deals and axing road improvement schemes?

David Davies: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. Figures from the Office for National Statistics this week suggest that around 1 in 5 people in Wales is now on a waiting list as opposed to just 1 in 18 people in England. As she has just pointed out, 50,000 people have been waiting more than two years for healthcare in Wales. I would far rather see the money that will be spent on creating extra Senedd Members spent on delivering healthcare in Wales.

Marco Longhi: Despite the Welsh Government receiving £1.20 for every £1 spent on public services in England, they spend only £1.05 of that money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Government should   spend less time and money on expanding the Senedd and putting tampons in men’s toilets, and focus on delivering a proper service for the people of Wales?

David Davies: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the 50,000 people who are in pain and on waiting lists at the moment would far rather see the £100 million that will be spent on expanding the Senedd being spent on delivering healthcare and reducing waiting lists in Wales.

Geraint Davies: The Secretary of State will be aware that higher levels of poverty give rise to higher healthcare costs and higher absolute numbers of people needing healthcare, so how can he justify the fact that Wales does not get its 5% share of High Speed 2—£5 billion—and is losing enormous amounts of money from EU funding, which he promised would be provided, and thousands of jobs in Welsh universities? We need that productivity to alleviate poverty and to put less pressure on the NHS. It is his fault that those waiting lists are growing.

David Davies: I certainly do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has come up with on HS2. The fact is that the UK Government have replaced EU funding in full through the shared prosperity fund, the community ownership fund, the community renewal fund, levelling-up funds and much else besides. The UK Government have also made certain that £1.20 is delivered per head of population for NHS care in Wales, as opposed to £1 in England. It is very hard for him to explain why Wales receives more money to deliver healthcare and yet delivers lower standards.

Kirsten Oswald: If the UK Government were to uplift NHS and social care pay in England to the level in Scotland, it would unlock funding for all the devolved nations to support their national health services through the cost of living crisis. Will the Secretary of State discuss the possibility of a pay uplift and its impact on Wales with Cabinet colleagues?

David Davies: The hon. Lady is right that Scotland is very generously funded. She seems to be making an argument that Wales and England should receive more money per head than Scotland does at the moment and that she would be happy with that: I doubt it very much. The reality is that despite the generous funding that the Scottish Government receive, they have very poor outcomes, and some of their own members have said that health care in Scotland is close to collapse.

Renewable Energy

Jeff Smith: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for renewable energy in Wales.

Liz Twist: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for renewable energy in Wales.

James Davies: The UK Government are committed to supporting renewable energy generation in Wales, including for innovative tidal stream technologies at  Morlais through our flagship contracts for difference scheme. I will continue to work across Government to ensure that we can capitalise on the huge renewable energy opportunities Wales has to offer.

Jeff Smith: The best way to bring down bills for Welsh businesses long term is to help to transition away from fossil fuels. That is why Labour is calling for a national wealth fund, so we can help industries such as Welsh steel win the race in the future. What comparable steps will the Government take to help heavy industry decarbonise?

James Davies: The Government have an ambitious programme to decarbonise the country by 2050, and we have provided £21.5 million to the south Wales industrial cluster to decarbonise heavy industry and support the transition to net zero. Of course, the opportunities for floating offshore wind in that region could be critical too.

Liz Twist: A Labour Government will more than quadruple offshore wind to make the UK a clean energy superpower, making the most of the fantastic natural resources in Wales. When will the Government match that ambition so that sectors such as Welsh offshore wind can achieve their full potential?

James Davies: As I mentioned in my previous answer, there is an ambitious programme for offshore wind, including floating offshore wind in south-west Wales and south-west England. There is an intention for 4 GW of power to be provided through the Celtic sea by 2035 and many more gigawatts in the future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Stephen Crabb: On this St David’s Day there are many reasons to be positive about the Welsh economy, not least the role that Wales will play in delivering greater energy security for the UK and helping move us to net zero. On that theme, would the Minister agree that we have a brilliant opportunity with the deployment of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, but we need the Government to go ahead and give us the Celtic freeport for south Wales? We also have a huge opportunity on Ynys Môn with the development of new gigawatt-scale nuclear power there.

James Davies: My right hon. Friend is a strong campaigner on this front. I would add that £60 million is being invested in the marine project at Pembroke dock through the Swansea Bay city deal, so there is plenty of potential for his region.

Oliver Heald: Does the Minister agree that over recent months we have seen better co-operation between the European Union and the UK over energy? Does he agree that the Windsor framework will mean that we can go much further? That co-operation will release the potential for energy security and hopefully see prices come down, which will help Wales.

James Davies: My right hon. and learned Friend is of course right that co-operation is always a good thing, and in fact interconnectors are critical to our energy  security. Only last week I met a company proposing to connect mainland Great Britain with the Republic of Ireland through a second interconnector.

Gerald Jones: We know that oil and gas producers have been making record profits for more than 18 months, but the Government’s paltry windfall tax began in May last year. How can the Government justify leaving billions of pounds of excess profits untouched while so many people across Wales are struggling with household bills and the rising cost of living crisis?

James Davies: Mercifully, energy costs now appear to be on a downward trajectory, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that up to 70% in tax has been taken from energy producers through the windfall tax, which is bringing a great deal of money into the Treasury to help to fund the support packages that people are relying on.

Governance of Elite Rugby Union

Luke Evans: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the adequacy of the governance of elite rugby union in Wales.

David Davies: I share the concerns of all hon. Members about the grave allegations of misogyny that have been made about the Welsh Rugby Union, and the recent contract negotiations with players have also been a matter of concern. Rugby has always been at the heart of Welsh culture and, as such, I was pleased to meet the acting chief executive officer Nigel Walker recently. He is an honourable man and well thought of. I am sure that he takes the allegations seriously and will be dealing with them.

Luke Evans: Being half Welsh and half English, the game at the weekend can often be difficult, but I am united in being a rugby fan. In England, I have met the CEOs of premiership rugby and of the Rugby Football Union, and the Minister, to ensure good governance. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Labour Government to ensure that the players, fans and good governance secure rugby union and its elite stars in Wales?

David Davies: Obviously, sport is a devolved matter, but I have had conversations with Nigel Walker and other members of the WRU informally. The UK Government, and I am sure the Welsh Government, were appalled by the allegations. I would be happy to work with the Welsh Government, the WRU or any other body, including the external body that has been set up to look at the issue, to ensure that the allegations are properly dealt with.

Anna McMorrin: Dydd gŵyl Dewi Sant hapus, Mr Speaker. I am sure that all hon. Members are concerned about the allegations of discrimination and misogyny within the WRU that victims have come forward and said they have faced. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about the matter and the pressure that they can put on the WRU to address these serious allegations?

David Davies: The hon. Lady will be aware that sport is a devolved matter, but those concerns will be shared in DCMS. Those sorts of allegations have been made about not just rugby, but other sports, so there is a nationwide problem. My colleagues in DCMS will be doing everything they can to deal with such allegations in England. I would honestly be happy to work with her, the WRU and the Welsh Government—or any other body that has some means of dealing with the issue. We must absolutely ensure that sport is safe for women, minorities and everyone to take part in without any form of discrimination.

Levelling-Up Fund: Welsh Communities

Simon Baynes: What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the impact of the levelling-up fund on Welsh communities.

Alun Cairns: What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the impact of the levelling-up fund on Welsh communities.

David Davies: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about how the £330 million allocated to Wales so far through the levelling-up fund is supporting communities, creating jobs, driving up economic growth and keeping the Government’s commitment to ensure that Wales does not lose a penny as a result of coming out of the European Union.

Simon Baynes: The Labour Welsh Government have badly let down Clywd South and Wrexham by scrapping the A483 junction upgrade, which would have unlocked substantial investment and jobs in our community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they need to support and maximise the benefits of the UK Government’s Welsh levelling-up fund projects by investing in road upgrades across Wales?

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Welsh Government’s response to the roads review gives the impression that Wales is closed for business by determining that no further road-building projects will take place. I urge them to consider the impact of not building roads on the economy and the long-term prosperity of Wales. They should consider how they might build on the record support that Wales has received through the levelling-up fund and city and growth deals by rebuilding roads and improving connectivity across Wales.

Alun Cairns: Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus, Mr Speaker. The levelling-up fund offered prospects for communities such as Barry that had been ignored by the Welsh Labour Government for many years. In the last levelling-up fund round, however, Cardiff bay, which has received billions of pounds for regeneration in recent decades, received a further £50 million, but Barry Making Waves, which is delivering a marina project, was ignored. What hope, prospect and opportunity can I offer people in Barry for the next round of levelling-up funding?

David Davies: I fully understand my right hon. Friend’s disappointment that the bid was not successful on this occasion, and I pay tribute to him for being such a champion for that particular bid and for his constituency.  I suggest to him that there is going to be a third round of levelling-up funding, and I hope that local authorities that have not thus far been successful will apply.

Beth Winter: Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb. Will the Minister please join me in congratulating Mountain Ash in my constituency on being shortlisted for the Let’s Celebrate Towns competition, which is being announced here in Parliament this evening? On this St David’s Day, will he also now join me in urging the UK Government to restore the £1.1 billion missing in Wales, and allow the Welsh Government to administer those funds to enable every community in Wales, including Cynon Valley, to thrive?

David Davies: First, Mr Speaker, I would like to say llongfyfarchiadau mawr to the constituents of the hon. Lady. I do not recognise the figure that she has just quoted: the UK Government have made sure that record funding has flowed through to the Welsh Government, and in replacing the funds that we used to receive from the European Union we have made sure that Wales has not lost out by one penny. The UK Government have been working directly with the 22 local authorities across Wales, including the hon. Lady’s, to ensure that we can continue to deliver jobs, prosperity and growth in Wales.

Dave Doogan: The Minister says that he does not recognise the figure of £1.1 billion—well, the people and communities of Wales will recognise that £1.1 billion when it fails to materialise any significant improvement in their communities and healthcare outcomes, or in business investment. What will he do to compensate the people of Wales for the paltry levelling-up funding that is no match for European funding?

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well that it is not just levelling-up funding that is replacing EU funds: it is levelling-up funds, community ownership funds, community renewal funds and shared prosperity funds. On top of that, the Government are delivering nearly £790 million in growth deals. Wales has not lost out by one penny as a result of the UK Government’s implementing the result of the referendum, in which the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union.

Cost of Living Crisis: Impact on Businesses

Chris Elmore: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the cost of living crisis on businesses in Wales.

David Davies: This Government have provided an unprecedented package for non-domestic energy users through this winter, worth £18 billion, and our new energy bills discount scheme will provide a discount on high energy costs to give businesses certainty while limiting taxpayers’ exposure to volatile energy markets.

Chris Elmore: I welcome the Secretary of State’s support running up to April, but he must accept that the changes that the Government are introducing from April are also bringing about huge amounts of uncertainty for many businesses, including in my constituency of  Ogmore. One business is looking at potentially making several hundred of its workforce redundant because it is unable to get guarantees on funding beyond April. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see what work we can do to try to ensure that business is secured, and convince the Chancellor that more support is needed in the Budget for businesses in Wales and across the UK?

David Davies: I certainly know that the Chancellor and the Treasury have been having discussions with businesses in Wales about what support can be given, but I would be perfectly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and that business in his constituency to see what further support can be given.

Virginia Crosbie: Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus. Businesses on Ynys Môn have been impacted by the cost of living crisis, compounded by a lack of investment in key infrastructure. With the cancellation of plans for a third Menai bridge, it is clear that Labour and its Plaid chums in Cardiff would rather Anglesey was on a road to nowhere. Does the Secretary of State agree that a freeport on Anglesey would demonstrate that my constituency is on a superhighway to the future?

David Davies: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty champion for not only a freeport, but a nuclear power station and a third Menai bridge, in her constituency of Ynys Môn. She must have been as disappointed as I was that the Welsh Labour Government have decided that they will build no more roads in Wales, meaning that her constituents will lose out as a result of not being able to have that vital road connection.

Public Services: Government Support

Christina Rees: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of Government support for public services in Wales.

James Davies: This Government are committed to delivering high-quality public services. For instance, by next month, there will be a record number of police officers serving communities across Wales, and we have seen crime decrease by 10% across England and Wales between 2021 and 2022. As the hon. Lady is aware, many public services, including health and education, are devolved in Wales.

Christina Rees: Will the Minister urge his colleagues to accept the Welsh Affairs Committee’s recommendation that HS2 be reclassified as an England-only project? Wales will then receive Barnett consequentials estimated at £5 billion, allowing the Welsh Labour Government to continue to expand public transport services, and people in Wales can then receive the same benefits from HS2 as those in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

James Davies: The hon. Lady knows that HS2 is an England and Wales project and is an important backbone of Britain’s rail infrastructure, and the important thing for Wales is to be able to plug in to it and take advantage of it. We also need to see the roads review that the Welsh Government have brought forward scrapped. We need to see investment in our roads.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to inform Members that a book of condolence for Baroness Boothroyd has been placed outside the Library.
I point out that live subtitles and British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings are available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Justin Madders: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 March.

Rishi Sunak: May I wish everyone, but in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), a very happy St David’s Day?
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Justin Madders: The Prime Minister understands the importance of NHS staff, because he was out there every Thursday night clapping for them during the pandemic. He must therefore also surely know that he has not got a hope of dealing with the NHS crisis if he does not invest in its workforce. We have a plan to double medical school places and end the scandal of straight-A students being denied the chance to become a doctor. Patients support our plan, the NHS supports our plan, and even his Chancellor supports our plan. Why doesn’t he?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman needs to keep up—we are doing a workforce plan for the NHS. There are tens of thousands more doctors, more nurses in the NHS, a record number of GPs and record investment in the NHS. That is what we get with a Conservative Government delivering.

Tom Randall: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the staff at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, who, faced with a challenging winter with 300 covid and flu patients, as well as thousands of appointments affected by industrial action, have succeeded in reducing the backlog of those waiting more than 18 months for surgery by a quarter in just a month? Will he further reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the redevelopment of the Queen’s Medical Centre and Nottingham City Hospital, the second biggest hospital investment programme in the country?

Rishi Sunak: I join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust for their fantastic work, and I can confirm that we are committed to a new hospital scheme at the Queen’s Medical Centre and City Hospital as part of our new hospital programme. I know that progress is being made, and I look forward to seeing the project come to completion.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: Can I join the Prime Minister in wishing everybody a happy St David’s Day?
After 13 years of Tory failure, the average family in Britain will be poorer than the average family in Poland by 2030. That is a shocking state of affairs. If the Tories limp on in government, we are going to see a generation of young people learning to say “auf Wiedersehen, pet” in Polish, aren’t we?

Rishi Sunak: It is clear to everyone that the biggest impact on household living standards is the energy prices we are suffering as a result of an illegal war in Ukraine, and I would just remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we are doing to ease people through that. Because of our energy price guarantee, the Government are paying more than half of a typical household energy bill, saving households right now £1,000. It is one of the most generous support schemes globally. He knows that future decisions to support the cost of living are for the Budget, but if he is concerned about the cost of living, what he should do is stop making inflationary, unfunded spending commitments and back our plan to halve inflation.

Keir Starmer: The dictionary definition of unfunded commitments is last year’s kamikaze Budget. We are the only country in the G7 that is still poorer than it was before the pandemic, and the Prime Minister stands there pretending that it is all fine—total denial about the damage and decline that he is presiding over. Delivering growth and tackling the cost of living crisis will mean standing up to vested interests. Energy bills will go up by £900 in April. He knows he will have to act, but who is going to pay? Hard-working families through higher taxes and more borrowing, or the oil and gas giants celebrating record profits?

Rishi Sunak: I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman recently made a rare trip out of north London to visit Davos. Perhaps while he was there, he missed the survey of 4,000 global CEOs from 100 different countries who ranked the United Kingdom as their No. 1 European investment destination. If he is serious about getting the economy growing, he should stand up to the vested interests in the unions and back our minimum service levels.

Keir Starmer: Here is the thing: all CEOs of businesses are saying there is only one party with a plan for growth, and it is this party here. There is one party that broke the economy, and its Members are sitting on the Government Benches. On energy bills, it is not as complicated as the Prime Minister pretends. Oil and gas companies are making vast, unexpected profits while working people face the misery of higher bills. He can boast all he likes, but companies like Shell did not pay a penny in windfall tax last year, and they are still not paying their fair share now. Why does he not admit his mistake, get rid of the loopholes in his botched windfall tax and finally choose family finances over oil profits?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to forget that, as Chancellor, I introduced a new tax on energy companies. Energy companies will pay a 75% tax rate on extraordinary profits comparable to—indeed, higher than—other North sea nations. That  is what his shadow Levelling Up Secretary recently called for, but I have good news for them: we did it a year ago. They have to keep up. I know they claim to support levelling up, but they really need to keep up.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister introduced a tax on Shell and it has not paid a penny—fantastic work!  If he were serious about investing in the future of the country, he would start with housing. A few months ago, his Back Benchers forced him to scrap house building targets. At the time, he stood there and said it would mean the Government would build more homes. Well, would you believe it? A few months later, the Home Builders Federation say house building will fall to its lowest level in 75 years. He can change course on this. He can bring back targets and planning reforms, or he can duck that fight and let a generation down. Which is it?

Rishi Sunak: Actually, we have had record high numbers on house building and, indeed, the highest number of first-time buyers in around 20 years under this Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about investing for the long term of our country, and that is important when it comes to energy security, but Labour’s policy is to oppose any new oil and gas licences in the North sea. It is an absurd policy that would see us paying billions to countries abroad for our energy, while shipping it here with twice the carbon emissions. It is typical political posturing. It is bad for the economy; it is bad for our security—just like the Labour party.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Because of the noise, I do not think the Prime Minister is hearing the questions because I do think that one was on house building.

Keir Starmer: House building is at the lowest level for 75 years. A whole generation of people are desperate to get on the housing ladder. Thirteen years in power, and all the Prime Minister has to say to them is, “It’s somebody else’s fault—let me deflect.” No wonder they are furious with his Government.
It is not just bills or housing. Families are paying over £1,000 a month just to send their child to nursery. If the Prime Minister scrapped his non-dom status, he could start to fund better childcare, put money back into people’s pockets and get parents back to work. It seems a pretty simple choice to me. Which is he going to choose: wealthy tax avoiders or hard-working parents?

Rishi Sunak: If we want to see what happens with house building under a Labour Government, we just need to look at what is going on in London—and when it comes to the facts, they do not suit the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument. Let us just go over them: the wealthiest pay more tax and the poorest pay less tax than under any year of the last Labour Government. As for his plans, he has already spent the money he claims he would raise from his policy on five different things. It is the same old Labour party: always running out of other people’s money.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister is never happier than when he is pretending that everything is fine or blaming someone else—and didn’t we just see it there? He is choosing tax avoiders over hard-working parents.
I do not want to finish this session without asking about the covid disclosures in today’s Daily Telegraph. We do not know the truth of what happened yet—there are too many messages and too many unknowns—but families across the country will look at this, and the sight of politicians writing books portraying themselves as heroes or selectively leaking messages will be an insulting and ghoulish spectacle for them. At the heart of this is every family who made enormous sacrifices for the good of the country or who tragically lost loved ones.
The country deserves better. The covid inquiry has already cost the taxpayer £85 million and has not heard from a single Government Minister yet. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no more delays and that the inquiry will have whatever support it needs to report by the end of this year?

Rishi Sunak: The past couple of years were an incredibly difficult time for everyone involved in the health service. I pay tribute to all their hard work, and I know that the House will join me in that regard.
Rather than comment on piecemeal bits of information, I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the right way for these things to be looked at is through the covid inquiry; that is why we have established the covid inquiry. He will know—he has mentioned once or twice before that he was a lawyer in a previous life—that there is a proper process for these things. It is an independent inquiry. It has the resources it needs, it has the powers it needs, and what we should all do in this House is let it get on and do its job.

Philip Dunne: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s work to resolve the Rubik’s cube of the Northern Ireland protocol, opening up the prospect of resuming more positive relations with our nearest neighbours. Last week, Imperial College generously hosted an event to celebrate 25 years of the Environment Audit Committee’s scrutiny work. Academics from Imperial and the other world-class universities that support our work have been clamouring to re-engage with their research partners through Horizon and other programmes. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has commenced negotiations to resume an association for the UK with Horizon Europe?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the Windsor framework. He is right about the benefits that it can bring. I also join him in paying tribute to our incredible research community, who do a fantastic job. I can assure him that we will continue to work with the EU in a range of areas—not just research collaboration, but strengthening our sanctions against Russia, energy security and, crucially, illegal migration. I look forward to those discussions and hope we can conclude them productively on a range of different areas.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the SNP leader.

Stephen Flynn: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that EU single market access was “special”, “exciting” and “attractive”. If that is the case, why is he denying it to the rest of us?

Rishi Sunak: It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to play politics with the situation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, as he well knows, has a unique place in the United Kingdom. What we are trying to do is restore the balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and he would do well to acknowledge that.

Stephen Flynn: Let us be clear: what the Prime Minister said yesterday was that EU single market access will be a good thing for business. Of course, that is in contrast to the leader of the Labour party, who said in December that EU single market access would not boost economic growth. Does it hurt the Prime Minister to know that the Labour party believes in Brexit more than he does?

Rishi Sunak: With regard to Northern Ireland, the important thing is to avoid a land border on the island of Ireland between north and south. That is what it is crucial to achieve in getting the right framework for the arrangements in Northern Ireland, and the businesses there that trade across that border on a daily basis, with complex supply chains need, and value that access. That is something that the Windsor framework has sought to achieve and, I believe, delivers. It is not about the macro issue of membership of the European Union; it is about getting the right mechanisms in place to support businesses and communities in Northern Ireland. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he knows better than that: he knows that this is about Northern Ireland, and I hope that he can support what we have agreed.

Virginia Crosbie: I am sure the Prime Minister, like me, was excited to see the first new nuclear reactor for a UK power station in more than three decades arrive at Hinkley C this week. Will the Prime Minister make it his personal mission to deliver vital new nuclear power at Wylfa in my constituency of Ynys Môn, one of the best nuclear sites in the UK?

Rishi Sunak: When it comes to our energy policy, the important thing is to focus on our long-term energy security. That means more renewables, more offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and, indeed, more nuclear. Wylfa remains one of the best nuclear sites in the UK, and the strong support from the local community, and indeed my hon. Friend, makes it an attractive site for the UK’s nuclear revival. I know that Great British Nuclear, when that body is up and running, will be taking a very close look at it.

Colum Eastwood: Well, I have to say it is great to hear of the conversion that the Prime Minister has had on the benefits of the single market. Given Northern Ireland’s access to the dual market—both markets—and the benefits that that brings, will his Government commit to investing in infrastructure and higher education provision to maximise that benefit?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement and support in developing the Windsor framework. I think it delivers on what he wanted, which was to ensure that we protect Northern Ireland’s businesses and the supply chains that they have, and I can give him that commitment. He and I both want to see more investment in Northern Ireland not just from the Government, but from the private sector. This agreement  will unlock that investment, but, critically, a step on that journey is to have a reformed Executive, something I know everyone in this House would like to see.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in these difficult times, the free world must stand together? With that in mind, would he also agree that strengthening our friendships and support with other countries in Europe is important? Will he welcome the delegation here today from Lithuania, and does he agree with me that the decision to hold the Heads of State of NATO meeting in Lithuania—in Vilnius—in July shows what a strong ally it is and also how important we think it is to strengthen the eastern flank?

Rishi Sunak: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I am delighted that Lithuania and the city of Vilnius will host the NATO leaders summit in July, and the UK does have a strong and growing relationship with Lithuania. It was just yesterday that its Defence Minister was here supporting our efforts, together with Lithuania, to train Ukrainian soldiers. At the summit, we will work together to ensure we can deter and defend against Russian aggression by making sure that we implement the next phase of the most radical military transformation since the 1960s.

Sarah Champion: To date, 79 people have been killed on smart motorways. Last January, the Government said they would pause their roll-out. The Prime Minister said:
“Smart motorways are unpopular because they are unsafe. We need to listen to drivers and stop with the pursuit of policies that go against common sense.”
Since then, three new schemes have gone live, with three more expected shortly. Prime Minister, especially during a cost of living crisis, how do you justify pushing ahead with these deathtrap roads?

Rishi Sunak: Safety on our roads is our absolute priority, and we will do everything we can to make sure drivers do feel safe. Last year, we in fact paused the roll-out of smart motorways not already in construction while we consider the data and next steps. In the meantime, we have committed almost £900 million for safety improvements across the entire network.

Angela Richardson: On Monday evening, Zero Carbon Guildford received national recognition here in Parliament, winning the Climate Coalition’s Innovative UK Community Project award. It has taken what is often an overwhelming subject and turned it into tangible solutions to local issues to give people agency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the volunteers, including Ben, Izzy and Mark, on their award? Does he agree that grassroots organisations such as Zero Carbon Guildford are key stakeholders in our national journey to achieving net zero?

Rishi Sunak: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Zero Carbon Guildford on receiving the Climate Coalition’s Innovative UK Community Project award. She is absolutely right that community empower-ment, engagement and action can play a role in supporting the UK’s transition to net zero, enabling communities to access the benefits that it brings, from greener jobs to improved health.

Cat Smith: Last week I met nurses from the Royal College of Nursing. One of the biggest challenges that they face is the crumbling buildings of Royal Lancaster Infirmary. Hospital bosses were promised capital funding as one of the so-called 40 new hospitals back in January, but it is March and they have not seen a penny. How many broken hospitals and broken promises will it take for the Prime Minister to finally fix something?

Rishi Sunak: We are investing record sums in the hospital capital upgrade programme across the country. I am very happy to make sure that we are making progress on the scheme that she mentioned and that she gets the detail of that. It is not just the 40 hospitals but the 90 upgrades around the country, and up to 300 community diagnostic centres and elective surgical hubs. This is a Government who are backing the NHS with the resources it needs.

Craig Tracey: The tragic death of more than 50 people over the weekend when their small boat broke up off the coast of Italy is a sad reminder of the total disregard for life of the illegal traffickers who facilitate these crossings to make their money. Will the Prime Minister set out what steps he is taking to bring an end to this barbaric trade, and will he reassure my constituents that stopping illegal immigration remains a key priority for this Government?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right that the tragic incident near Italy at the weekend demonstrates only too well how illegal crossings put lives at risk. That is why last year the Home Secretary and I last year announced five new measures to tackle the problem of small boat crossings, including the largest ever boats deal with France and a landmark deal with Albania. But we must do more, and as soon as the legislation is ready it will be brought to this House to ensure that if you arrive in this country illegally, you will not be able to stay. You will be swiftly detained and removed to your own country or a safe third-country alternative. That is the right and responsible way to tackle this problem.

Joanna Cherry: The Prime Minister and I have one thing in common: we have both had to step in and sort out legal and constitutional messes created by his predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). The Prime Minister has boasted that his new Brexit deal puts Northern Ireland in an “unbelievably special position” because it will have access to both the UK and EU markets. He said that that makes it
“the world’s most exciting economic zone.”
My question to the Prime Minister is, if there can be a very special status for the province of Northern Ireland, why can there not be a very special status for the nation of Scotland?

Rishi Sunak: There is a very special status for the nation of Scotland, and that is inside our United Kingdom.

Sarah Atherton: The Prime Minister will know that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has yet again been put in special measures. The chairman and the whole board resigned en masse, as they no longer have faith in the Welsh Labour Government. Yet on a call earlier this week, the Welsh Health Minister told me that it was not the Welsh Labour Government’s fault that healthcare has collapsed in north Wales. Given that Labour runs the NHS in north Wales, can my right hon. Friend suggest to the people of north Wales whose fault it is and who should put it right?

Rishi Sunak: I share my hon. Friend’s concern. The House will know that health is a devolved matter for the Labour-run Government in Wales, where one in five people in the entire country are now on a waiting list. The Government there should focus on the people’s priorities and start cutting waiting lists, as we are doing here in England.

Christine Jardine: A heartbreaking 80% of those who responded to a survey that I carried out recently in my constituency said that the high cost of energy meant they would have to ration it—and I do not represent a deprived area. Nearly a quarter of Scottish households now live in fuel poverty, not helped, of course, by the total absence of a Scottish Government insulation programme. Will the Prime Minister now accept that allowing the price cap to rise will only make things worse for millions of families, and given the significant reduction in the cost of wholesale energy, will he also accept that it is time to listen to the Liberal Democrats and cut bills to the levels of last April?

Rishi Sunak: The Liberal Democrats’ shadow Energy Secretary said that there was no role for nuclear power in our future energy industry, which is not something that we need to listen to. As for helping people with their energy bills, as I said earlier, because of the energy price guarantee we are paying, typically, about half a family’s energy bill at the moment, which is worth £1,000. However, the support does not end there: over the next year there will be about £1,000 of direct support for the most vulnerable families in the nation.
I agree with the hon. Lady about energy efficiency. It is important, which is why the Government have allocated more than £6 billion over the current Parliament, and the new schemes that we have just introduced will help hundreds of thousands of households across the country, saving them about £300 on their bills through improvements in their energy efficiency—and the hon. Lady is right: it should be available everywhere, including Scotland.

Alberto Costa: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Greece, may I put on record how sad we all are about the tragic train accident and loss of life there?
The double child rapist and killer Colin Pitchfork is once again up for parole next month. I know that the Prime Minister has no part in any decision-making process in terms of the independent Parole Board, but can he organise an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Justice, so that I can refer my constituents’ views about this dangerous man and he can take them into account in his submissions to the board?

Rishi Sunak: Pitchfork’s crimes were heinous, and our thoughts remain with Lynda and Dawn’s friends and families. My hon. Friend knows that it is for the Parole Board to make these decisions, but my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be submitting his views on the Pitchford case to the board before the oral hearing and will be happy to meet my hon. Friend again. We recently published a root-and-branch review of the Parole Board system that outlined our plans to introduce greater ministerial oversight, and I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions and thoughts on that.

Ruth Cadbury: Yesterday, new figures showed that there had been a 26% increase in the number of people sleeping rough. Meanwhile, a Conservative party donor has spent £25,000 on a crystal-encrusted portrait of the Prime Minister, and another has paid £40,000 for a shooting trip. Does this not demonstrate just how out of touch the Conservative party is with the cost of living crisis?

Rishi Sunak: Rough sleeping levels have been 35% lower this year than the peak, partly as a result of our £2 billion of extra investment over the last three years to tackle rough sleeping. We still have one of the lowest rates in the world, according to when it was last measured, but we will continue to do more. We do not want anyone to have to sleep rough. Because of the innovations that we have made we are taking more and more people off the streets, and we will keep delivering more.

James Sunderland: Last month The Pines Primary School in my constituency achieved a “good” rating in its Ofsted inspection. That in itself is laudable, but what is particularly significant is that The Pines is now the 40th of 40 eligible schools in Bracknell to be rated “good” or “outstanding”. This clean sweep is itself an outstanding achievement, and I am very proud of everyone locally. Will the Prime Minister please join me in congratulating our fantastic teachers, staff, governors and pupils, as well as Councillor Gareth Barnard and the entire education team in Conservative-run Bracknell Forest Council?

Rishi Sunak: Education is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for transforming people’s lives, so I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in praising everyone involved, from the councillor to the teachers to the staff to the governors, for delivering such fantastic results. They are in the business of providing tremendous opportunities for the children in their care, and we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

Chris Elmore: Citizens Advice estimates that the number of households unable to afford their energy bills will double from one in 10 to one in five from April. Labour has a plan to help struggling families right across the country now. Why can the Prime Minister not see the need to take action on energy bills now, avoid the cliff edge— Conservative Members can shout all they like. Why  can he not see the need to take action now, avoid the cliff edge and stop plunging more people into poverty from April?

Rishi Sunak: We are helping people now. We are helping people with the energy price guarantee, which is ensuring they have a £1,000 saving on their energy bills right now, and we are providing further support over the coming year for the most vulnerable with direct cost of living support of up to £1,000. There is also a record increase in pensions, a record increase in benefits and a record increase in the national living wage, because that is what Conservative Governments do.

Jack Brereton: Some 97% of ceramics businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises, which means that they have not received the level of support that many other energy-intensive sectors have, so will my right hon. Friend look at what more support, particularly financial support, can be offered to help this sector to decarbonise and invest in energy efficiency measures?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his ceramics industry, and rightly so. It has been a pleasure to meet him and his businesses in the past. He will know that our energy bills discount scheme will support businesses with their energy bills through to March next year, and we have a range of other funds to support energy-intensive industries. There is the scheme that he mentioned, and also the industrial energy transformation fund, which provides capital grants to businesses such as his to help them decarbonise. I look forward to discussing this with him and his businesses in the near future.

Patrick Grady: It has been announced that on 7 May, a coronation choir will perform at Windsor castle, comprised of some of the UK’s keenest community choirs and amateur singers, including refugee choirs, NHS choirs, LGBTQ+ singing groups and deaf signing choirs. If it turns out that any of the refugees taking part in that choir have arrived here on small boats or from a safe third country, should they be deported to Rwanda before or after they sing for the King?

Rishi Sunak: It is amazing, when we have had a question about the awful tragedy of illegal migration that happened recently, that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept that there is absolutely nothing compassionate about tolerating illegal migration when people are dying.  That is why the Government will bring forward legislation to improve the system here. It is absolutely right that if people come here illegally, they should be sent to a safe alternative, because that is the only way we will break the cycle of these criminal gangs and stop people dying needlessly.

Nicholas Fletcher: A school in my constituency was complaining that it could not afford to turn the heating on, yet that school and others are spending money on PSHE materials from organisations such as Stonewall and Jigsaw that are educating our boys and girls that they may not have been born in the right body or that they may have an inner gender identity. Will the PM meet me to see how we can stop this unscientific, ideological education being taught in our schools and get our children learning where they should be learning—in a warm, safe place?

Rishi Sunak: We have boosted school funding by around £2 billion in each of the next two years, which will help schools to manage their energy costs, but we do expect schools to take responsible and sensible decisions on their RHSE materials and make sure that those materials are age-appropriate, suitable, politically impartial and value for money. I look forward to discussing this matter with my hon. Friend, and I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

Rosie Duffield: The Prime Minister may be aware of Sky News’s investigation and report today on the over-the-counter sale of nitrous oxide, or laughing gas, to children and young teenagers. One alarming aspect is the change in the size of canisters from 8 grams to 620 grams, and ambulance call-outs related to overuse have tripled. Instead of criminalising the young people who buy nitrous oxide, is it not time to take urgent action against those knowingly selling this harmful and potentially life-changing substance to children under age?

Rishi Sunak: I share the hon. Lady’s concern and that of Members across the House about nitrous oxide’s detrimental impact on communities and its contribution to antisocial behaviour. Indeed, I mentioned it specifically in a speech I made at the beginning of this year. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is conducting a review of nitrous oxide and looking at this question in particular. The Home Secretary has asked it to expedite that review and we will consider its advice carefully when it is received.

Covid Pandemic:  Testing of Care Home Residents

Liz Kendall: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the testing of care home residents during the covid pandemic.

Helen Whately: The covid-19 pandemic was an unprecedented global health emergency involving a novel coronavirus that we were still learning about day by day, even hour by hour. Even in those early days, the UK Government and colleagues in my Department were clear that testing would be crucial. That is why the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), set ambitious testing targets to drive a true step change in the quantity of tests, because he knew that testing would be a vital lifeline until vaccines could be developed and proven safe and effective.
The importance of testing was never in doubt, and there was full agreement on that in every part of Government, from the chief medical officer to the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister. But in a situation where we had the capacity to test, at most, a few thousand each day, tough decisions about prioritisation had to be made. Those decisions were taken on the best public health advice available. Thanks in no small part to the bold testing ambitions driven by the Government, we were able to build the largest testing network in Europe.
I put on record my thanks to all those who worked tirelessly on this mission day and night, from civil servants to the NHS and, of course, our incredible social care workforce, who did so much to look after their residents. They all deserve our lasting gratitude.
The situation in our care homes was extremely difficult during the pandemic, not just in England but across the UK and, indeed, across the world. Because of the vulnerability of residents and the large number of people who come in and out of care homes, it is vital that we learn lessons.
It is equally vital that we learn those lessons in the right context. Selective snippets of WhatsApp conversations give a limited and, at times, misleading insight into the machinery of government at the time. The covid inquiry is important so that we have the right preparations in place to meet future threats and challenges.

Liz Kendall: Throughout the covid pandemic, Ministers repeatedly claimed that they had thrown a protective ring around England’s care homes and that they had always followed the evidence and scientific advice, but WhatsApp messages from the former Health Secretary revealed in today’s Daily Telegraph suggest that nothing could be further from the truth.
Will the Minister confirm that the chief medical officer first advised the Government to test all residents going into care homes in early April 2020? Can she explain why the former Health Secretary rejected that advice and failed to introduce community testing until 14 August—a staggering four months later? Can she publish the evidence that following the advice would have muddied the waters, as the right hon. Member for  West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) claimed? And can she confirm that 17,678 people died of covid in care homes between the CMO’s advice and the Government finally deciding to act? She should know, because she was responsible for care homes at the time.
Former Ministers are touring the studios this morning claiming that this delay was simply because there were not enough tests. Where is the evidence for that? Even if tests were in short supply, why were care homes residents not prioritised when the devastating impact of covid was there for all to see?
Nobody denies that dealing with covid was unbelievably difficult, especially in the early days, but care home residents and staff were simply not a priority. Yet the former Prime Minister and former Health Secretary were first warned about the emerging horror in care homes by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in March 2020. I myself raised the lack of testing in care homes with the Health Secretary on 8 April, 28 April, 19 May and 17 June 2020, long before the CMO’s advice was finally followed.
The Minister will no doubt say that all these issues will be looked at in the public inquiry, but its findings will not be available for years. The families of the 43,000 care home residents who lost their lives will be appalled at the former Health Secretary attempting to rewrite history—an attempt that will turn to ashes along with his TV career. We need more humility and less celebrity from the right hon. Member for West Suffolk, and above all we need answers.

Helen Whately: It is relatively easy for the hon. Member to come to the House today and make these highly political points. Knowing how she and I worked together in the pandemic, and that she and I talked about all that we were doing to look after people in care homes, I am shocked and disappointed by the tone she has taken today, when we are dealing with extremely serious questions.
I will turn first to some of the difficult prioritisation decisions that were made, given the limited quantity of testing we had at the beginning of the pandemic. The Government followed the expert public health advice available at the time. We had the capacity to test just 3,000 cases a day in mid-March, and I am sure colleagues will understand why the health advice at the time was to prioritise those working on our NHS frontline and, for instance, the testing of people in hospitals and care homes who had symptoms. In fact, the courts have already agreed that our prioritisation decisions on testing were completely rational.
As we dramatically ramped up testing capacity, we also adjusted that prioritisation in line with the public health advice and the capacity, so by mid-April—just a month later—with testing capacity exceeding 38,000, we were in a position to test more widely. In fact, that is reflected in our adult social care plan published on 15 April, which made it clear that everyone discharged from a hospital to a care home should be tested even if asymptomatic, and that all discharged patients, regardless of the result of their test, should be isolated for 14 days. It is worth reflecting just what a dramatic increase in testing the Government oversaw, from just 3,000 in March 2020 to over 38,000 in mid-April, to over 100,000 by mid-May, to the point where we could test many millions in a single week. We established the largest testing network in Europe from a standing start, and the science proves that it saved lives.
The hon. Lady asked about the content of the WhatsApp messages that have been published. I say to her that it is a selection from a larger quantity of messages. Clearly, while there were discussions and debates between Ministers and colleagues, partly on WhatsApp, there were also meetings and conversations and other forums in which advice was given and decisions made. A huge quantity of that is with the public inquiry, but I can say to her that, for instance, a meeting to discuss the implementation of the advice on testing was not referenced in the WhatsApp messages she is talking about. There is an email following the exchange to which she is referring that says, “We can press ahead straightaway with hospitals testing patients who are going into care homes. And we should aspire, as soon as capacity allows and when we have worked out an operational way of delivering this, that everyone going into a care home from the community could be tested.” As I say, she is basing her comments on very selective information.
As I said, the hon. Lady knows how the Government, and me personally, strained every sinew, worked day and night, and did everything in our power to help people, and specifically the most vulnerable, during the pandemic. She and I spoke about it regularly during our frequent calls. In fact, at the time I appreciated her perspective, questions and insights from her own area of Leicester. I say to her that we should go about this discussion in the right way for the country. This is not the time to play political games. We should look to save lives. That is the purpose of the public inquiry: to learn lessons in the right way in case this should ever happen again.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend will agree that it was Labour that called for a public inquiry, and the Government agreed to it. It is a full public inquiry and we could not have a better judge than Dame Heather Hallett, one of our most experienced and distinguished judges. She will do a very thorough job. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are seeing today is a bit of trial by media and party politics?

Helen Whately: My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right; we are having a public inquiry and the Government are fully co-operating with it so that it has all the information required to look through all that happened, to investigate it and, rather than trying to score political points, to truly learn lessons for the benefit of the country.

Barbara Keeley: On 2 April 2020, I wrote to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), highlighting the urgent need for testing in care homes for staff and residents and, in particular, for patients being discharged from hospital. I knew at the time, as did other colleagues, that without that testing, care homes in my constituency and those across the country were suffering a heavy toll of deaths of residents. Indeed, one of our care home managers died of covid in my constituency.
Furthermore, at a session of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care in July 2021, I asked the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) why the Government had not taken up the offer from care providers of facilities to isolate people discharged from hospital before admitting them to care homes. He told me that he did not know anything about the letter, despite it being sent by Care England. Will the Minister now admit that the Department and Ministers failed to understand and to involve social care in the key decisions about the covid pandemic, and ignored letters offering help that could have saved lives?

Helen Whately: The hon. Lady is right about the importance of testing. It is a view that she has and that I had at the time; some of the exchanges will show how I, as Social Care Minister, was arguing very hard for testing for care homes, as Members would expect. I know that other Ministers and other people were arguing for the things that they had oversight of. Ultimately, of course, the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister had to make decisions, based every step of the way, clearly, on the scientific advice on these things, as we did. To that point, during the course of the pandemic, as the capacity allowed, millions of tests were distributed to care homes. As I have said, as the capacity increased, care homes were prioritised in that process. Specifically to address one of the points she made, let me say that the guidance set out on 15 April was not only that everyone discharged from hospital to a care home should be tested, but that they should be isolated.

Peter Bone: It seems that the Opposition want to rewrite history. The fact is that at the time people did not know what was right or what was wrong. The then Secretary of State listened to a whole lot of advice and then had to make a decision. Even one of the WhatsApp messages I have seen said:
“Tell me if I’m wrong”.
What should happen is that the covid inquiry should deal with all these matters properly. The one question I have for the Minister is this: is it possible to get the covid inquiry to report earlier?

Helen Whately: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the covid inquiry being the right place for people to go through the details of what happened—who said what and, as he said, the genuine debates that took place behind the scenes. This was a new virus and, at the time, we had only limited information about it. For instance, when it first hit our shores, it was not known who would be most vulnerable to it. We also did not know about asymptomatic transmission. There was a huge amount of uncertainty at the time, but the best possible decisions were made. As for the timing of the public inquiry, that is not within the control of Ministers.

Daisy Cooper: The leaked WhatsApp messages from the then Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), showed that, despite a shortage of covid tests in September 2020, one of the Minister’s advisers sent a test to the home of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) by courier. This is yet more evidence that it is one rule for Conservative Ministers and another for everyone else. Can the Minister please inform the House how many other Government Ministers,  Conservative MPs and their families received priority tests during the pandemic when there was a shortage of tests?

Helen Whately: It is difficult for me as a Minister to see WhatsApp messages from me in the pages of a newspaper. If the hon. Lady has read those, she will have seen that I was seeking a test for a member of my family and that I used exactly the same test app as everybody else to try to access a test that was needed.

Tim Loughton: I seem to recall that two years ago, when there was a limited supply of testing equipment, there were all sorts of calls for certain groups to be prioritised. There were also urgent calls for available beds in hospitals to be freed up to cope with the likely surge in cases. In hindsight, some of those priorities may have been wrong, but at the time it was an urgent situation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that exactly the same set of priorities about access to testing prevailed in Wales, and it took the Welsh Government two weeks longer to mandate testing for care home residents in Wales than it did in England? Why are we not seeing equal outrage from the Opposition about that?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the challenges that were faced around the world in handling the pandemic, and very conspicuously for us across the UK. Decisions were having to be taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as here in England. Had Opposition Members been in our position, in government, and having to make these difficult decisions, I am sure that they, like us, would have strained every sinew and done their very best to make the best possible decisions in a situation of limited information.

Janet Daby: Even if we now know that the Secretary of State was not following the scientific advice, the Minister was in her job at the time these decisions were being made. Can she explain why she did not do the right thing then? Was she not listening to the chief medical officer either?

Helen Whately: I fear that the hon. Lady did not hear my previous answer, which was that the public health advice and the advice of the chief medical officer was followed. Of course there is a job to do when advice  is given, and then there are the practicalities of implementation. As the volume of tests became available, those tests were used as advised, following the public health advice.

Kieran Mullan: I will not forget the totally shameless politicking by Opposition Members during the pandemic. I specifically remember the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in her place, and the Leader of the Opposition talking about how we had the worst death toll in Europe. They said that again and again. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister say from a sedentary position that we did, but the studies now show that we were ahead of Italy, ahead of Spain, broadly in line with France and Germany, and very far from the worst in Europe. Have we ever heard any Opposition Member come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for misleading  the British public about our record during the pandemic? Does my hon. Friend agree that they might seek to do that before criticising us any further for our record?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend is right. The right thing for us to do as a country is to reflect overall on how we handled the pandemic, on the decisions that we made and, indeed, on how prepared we were in the first place. That is the right way to do it. Of course we regret every life that was lost; I think about the families who lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandmas. It is so deeply sad that so many lives were lost, but that is something that affected us here in England, across the UK and, indeed, across the world. But the right thing for us to do is to look at these things in the reasoned environment of the inquiry and then use the lessons learned and the reflections from that inquiry to make sure that, in the event that we ever have to face another pandemic like it, we can do better.

Karin Smyth: The Government entered the pandemic unprepared, ignoring the lessons from Operation Cygnus, and ran the NHS at 96% capacity. That was part of the problem. We all know that mistakes happen. We all know that it was really difficult. However, today is disappointing, because some humility should have been brought to this place. More than 17,000 people lost their lives. It is our job as the Opposition to scrutinise decisions. The former Secretary of State has thrown his colleagues under a bus because of his own vanity, but I suggest that Government Ministers need to use this time before the inquiry to ease families’ suffering by coming forward with more detail on actually what did happen.

Helen Whately: There has already been a legal investigation into some of the aspects that we are talking about today. Given the huge number of decisions that had to be made and the period of time that we are talking about, the right way to do this is to bring all the evidence together, in the form of a public inquiry, and have it fully examined. That is the best way to answer the sorts of questions that the hon. Lady suggests.

Damian Green: This is a profoundly serious question—literally a matter of life and death. As such, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that the appropriate way to reach conclusions is through a proper public inquiry conducted by a very distinguished judge. Can she assure the House that the Government will be as transparent and as open as possible in giving evidence to that public inquiry, so that we can all be confident at the end of this that we have reached the appropriate conclusion?

Helen Whately: I can absolutely assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are sharing with the public inquiry a huge quantity of evidence so that it can reach the best possible, best informed conclusions.

Clive Efford: The emails and WhatsApp messages expose the fact that the scientific advice was that people leaving hospital should be swabbed before going into care homes, and the Government ignored that. That shows that the Government were not following scientific advice. The Minister has said that other priorities had to be considered before the Government could  implement that policy, but no one would have been more aware of the competing priorities than Professor Whitty. What was it that the Government knew that Professor Whitty did not when they decided not to follow his advice?

Helen Whately: It really feels as though Opposition Members have not been listening to my answers. The public health advice was followed. The situation was that we had a limited capacity for testing. That is not spelled out in those messages, because, as I have said, other meetings and other conversations were taking place. As soon as testing capacity was available, further testing was used—for example, on people being discharged to care homes. Having been Care Minister at the time, I can tell the hon. Gentleman how hard we worked across Government. We all worked—not only me, but all of us involved in this—to get millions of tests out, during the course of the pandemic, to care homes in order to help protect those residents. This was followed by our prioritising those in care homes for the vaccination because, when it came down to it, although testing was helpful, what really made a difference was being able to vaccinate people. That is what really started to provide protection.

James Wild: Is it not regrettable, if all too typical, that the Labour party ignores the fact that when the pandemic struck there was capacity for only 2,000 tests a day—ignoring, too, the huge, successful efforts to massively increase that capacity—and instead chooses to leap on partial information to make political points rather than listen to the full facts of the public inquiry?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about how we ramped up incredibly fast from a capacity of just 3,000 tests a day in March 2020, to more than 38,000 in mid-April, and more than 100,000 by May. We were then able to test many millions per week during the course of the pandemic. That was the most extraordinary increase in the capacity to produce, carry out and analyse tests, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to it.

Derek Twigg: The Minister said that what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said was shocking. What is shocking is the number of people who died but who might have been saved in the first place. Is the Minister really saying that, at the beginning of the pandemic, there was no rush to get people out of hospital and back into the community without being tested?

Helen Whately: The questions about the discharge policy have been interrogated on a number of occasions, including by Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman will well know that in general, and in the work that we are doing now on discharge, it is rarely good for somebody who is medically fit for discharge to continue to be in hospital beyond that time. So of course it is right that when people are medically fit, they should be discharged home. The guidance of how that was done was set out on a number of occasions during the pandemic, and  that guidance was updated both as we learned more about the virus and as greater testing capacity became available.

Alexander Stafford: I am very proud of this Conservative Government’s record during the pandemic: 400 million tests, a world-leading and world-beating vaccine programme, and £400 billion spent to keep jobs and people’s prospects going. Clearly, hard decisions were made, and hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we should not be reflecting with hindsight now; we should deal with the facts at hand. Does the Minister agree that this Government will continue to take measures, and that if—God forbid—there is another pandemic, we will not let party politicking get in the way of making decisions to protect lives, fund jobs and keep our country going?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the extraordinary things that were done during the pandemic. I do not think that the Government should seek to take credit for that; so many people worked incredibly hard, whether in local authorities, social care or the NHS, or through their involvement in supply chains and the huge efforts to secure personal protective equipment when that was incredibly hard to get hold of across the world. I am glad that he draws attention to some of those things. He is absolutely right that, in the context of the public inquiry, we should reflect overall.

Emma Lewell-Buck: In April 2020, now-disappeared Government guidance in relation to hospital discharges stated:
“Negative tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home.”
It was later reported that the Minister then leaned on Public Health England to alter its proposed advice to care homes from ensuring that those discharged from hospitals tested negative to not requiring any testing at all. Why, at every stage, were the Government content to send people to their deaths in our care homes?

Helen Whately: I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s account at all. If she looks back at one of the legal cases that has looked into this question, she may find more accurate information about some of the conversations that went on behind the scenes. I can assure her that, as she would expect, in my capacity as social care Minister, I fought the corner for people receiving care—both home care and in care homes—throughout the pandemic.

Aaron Bell: Leaked WhatsApp messages will be partial and selective, but in reading even those I note that the Minister was doing her job on behalf of my constituents. In a message on 8 April, she spoke up for a care home in Newcastle-under-Lyme and raised it with the Government and her fellow Ministers. Everyone was doing their best. I served in the lessons learned inquiry, and there are lessons that can be learned with the benefit of hindsight, but the hindsight that we have seen from the Labour Front Bench is opportunistic. Does she agree that the Government were doing everything they could to respond to an unprecedented situation under severe pressure and severe supply and capacity constraints?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend is 100% right. The context is absolutely important as part of this conversation. It was a global pandemic about which very little was known and about which we worked incredibly hard to find out more, and on which we continually made the best possible decisions in the light of the information that we had. At all times, we prioritised protecting people and saving lives, particularly those who we learned would be most vulnerable. It is extremely disappointing to see an attempt to play politics with this issue.

Dan Carden: Care home residents and their families were failed not just at the beginning of the pandemic but in the months and years that followed, as families and loved ones were prevented from visiting. The leaked WhatsApps show that the Minister was arguing against the ban on visiting. Can she say why the ban was sustained for so long throughout the pandemic, and what plans she has to ensure that families with loved ones in care homes have the right to visit if this ever happens again?

Helen Whately: I know how strongly the hon. Member feels about this. Clearly, we are having ongoing conversations about visiting in care homes at the moment. As is evident in the WhatsApps, I was concerned during the pandemic about ensuring that families were able to see loved ones in care homes. As I have said in response to a number of questions, public health advice had to be taken into account all the way through the pandemic. Getting the right balance between protecting people from the risk of covid being taken into care homes and seeing friends and family will, I am sure, be looked into as part of the public inquiry discussions to answer questions such as his about the decisions taken on visiting. I will continue to work with him here and now to ensure that those who are currently in care homes get the visiting that they need.

Emma Hardy: The front page of today’s Telegraph, which reveals that the medical advice was not followed, will be heartbreaking for so many families up and down the country, re-opening the grief that so many felt about the loss of their loved ones. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s responses, and she has basically said that she is unable to compel the public inquiry to move more quickly—that it is above her pay grade. But what she could do now is commit to lobbying the Government to complete that public inquiry before the end of the year, and to doing everything she can to bring those answers forward for all those families who are today feeling so deeply hurt and upset.

Helen Whately: On the first point about the use of public health advice, the hon. Lady is wrong; all decisions were informed by public health advice. On her request about the public inquiry, that inquiry is independent of government, so I cannot do what she asks.

Florence Eshalomi: To reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) just made, every time there is a statement, every time there is a revelation, every time such an issue is raised, whether in this House or in the press, it triggers trauma for many people who have not healed from losing their loved  ones, who were not able to go to funerals, and who were not able to seek closure. I hope that the Minister will reflect on her response in that context.
To come back to the public inquiry, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said that the revelations show why the inquiry must allow the bereaved families to
“be heard in the hearings and for our lawyers to cross-examine key people”—
including the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock)—
“so we can get full answers to our questions in the right setting instead of having to relive the horrors of our loss through exposés.”
Does the Minister agree?

Helen Whately: As I have said, we are talking about, very sadly, people’s lives being lost—people’s mothers and fathers, grans and grandpas, sons and daughters, and sisters and brothers. We should always remember the genuine and real human cost, as well as all those who worked in health and social care looking after dying people and who had a traumatic time themselves.
On the trauma that the hon. Lady talks about, it is Labour Front Benchers who have asked the urgent question and made this conversation happen in this forum rather than in the context of a public inquiry, which might encourage a more reasoned form of debate. I hope she will have noticed that my tone fully appreciates the points that she makes, but it is not for me to dictate who will give evidence to the public inquiry.

Justin Madders: As the Minister will recall, I spoke for the Opposition on dozens of regulations to do with the pandemic, and on occasions I questioned some of the decisions that were made. The suspicion was that sometimes political rather than medical or scientific decisions were taken. What has come out overnight has caused me to question that again, and I hope she can understand why. It is an important question of trust for us as politicians but also for the wider public. Does she agree that rather than a partial and selective release of information to sell newspapers or books, the public deserve from the Government the release of all information so that we can get to the bottom of this?

Helen Whately: I do remember many of those SI debates. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not political decision making as he suggests. At every step of the way, Ministers such as I, the Health Secretary and of course the Prime Minister were making incredibly difficult decisions but always trying to do the right thing to save people’s lives and to protect people from that cruel virus which particularly attacked those who were most vulnerable, such as the frail elderly. In doing so, we continuously took public health advice. The way to look into everything that happened is indeed through the public inquiry: that is where the evidence is being provided and that is the forum in which the reflections will be taken and the lessons can be learned.

Layla Moran: My heart goes out to the bereaved families and I cannot imagine what they must be feeling again today. My heart also goes out to care workers, many of whom lost their lives having contracted covid. Many also survived  but are now living with long covid and have lost their livelihoods. The Minister may be aware that advice from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that would give compensation to just some of those brave workers is currently with the Department for Work and Pensions. In a recent meeting with me, the Minister told me that it could take years for that to be taken up. What conversations has this Minister had with the DWP and, if it will take years, will her Department set up a compensation scheme so that those brave workers get the support they deserve?

Helen Whately: As the hon. Lady says, care workers were among those on the frontline during the pandemic and they had some incredibly difficult experiences. They took the risk of catching covid and, very sadly, some care workers and NHS workers were among those who lost their lives. Others have long covid. The question of compensation is currently with the Department for Work and Pensions. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is in his place on the Front Bench: his Department is looking at this and will respond in due course.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers. Everyone’s thoughts and prayers are with those who lost loved ones. The impact of the covid lockdown on mental health was felt most keenly in care homes. To see what the elderly people were put through, and learn that the full protections were not in place and they could not see loved ones at the end of life, is totally unacceptable. What would the Minister offer to those who lost precious hours with those they loved and adored on hearing this tragic news today?

Helen Whately: I reiterate to those living in care homes and their loved ones and families that the Government took every step throughout the pandemic to protect those we knew were vulnerable. For instance, we prioritised testing with more than 180 million tests going to care homes during the pandemic, and we prioritised vaccinations. I remember talking to residents in care homes at the time, and vaccination was a huge moment for them because it was the first time they had felt really protected from that cruel virus. I know how hard it was for families that they could not see loved ones in care homes, and that was one reason we put out guidance about visiting, saying that if someone was close to end of life they should be able to receive visitors. I will continue to do my utmost as Minister for Social Care to make sure that we do our very best for those living in care homes.

Independent Public Advocate

Dominic Raab: Today I can announce that we intend to legislate as soon as possible to introduce an independent public advocate; to put victims and the bereaved at the heart of our response to large-scale public disasters; to make sure they get the support they deserve through public inquests and inquiries; and to make sure they get the answers they need to move forward in their lives.
I know the whole House will recall that fateful day of 15 April 1989, when thousands of fans prepared to watch the FA cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Ninety-seven men, women and children lost their lives, unlawfully killed in our country’s worst ever sporting disaster. What happened at Hillsborough was a monumental and devastating tragedy. To this day, I remember watching the scenes in horror, and the impact is felt to this day, especially by the families and friends of the victims.
Of course, for Hillsborough’s survivors and the bereaved, that terrible day was just the beginning of a 34-year ordeal. It was followed by an appalling injustice. Fans were blamed for their own injuries. Survivors and the bereaved were blocked at every turn in their search for answers. We must learn the lessons of Hillsborough and we must make sure they never happen again.
In the wider context, major disasters involving significant loss of life are mercifully rare in this country. But, as Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester bombings have shown, when they do happen, victims, families and communities have not received the answers to their questions, nor the support they need. We are duty bound, as a Government and as a House, to make sure that that never happens again and, positively, to ensure that those families and communities never again have to struggle in anguish against a system created to help them, in order to get the truth, and some measure of accountability.
The IPA will go some way to making good on the Government’s longstanding promise to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough victims, and other victims, is never repeated. It will be passed into law, and made up of a panel of experts to guide survivors and the bereaved in the aftermath of major disasters. It will deliver in six important respects that I will outline for the House.
First, the IPA will provide practical support to the families of the deceased, and individuals, or their representatives, who have suffered a devastating or life-changing injury. That practical support will include helping them to understand their rights, such as their right to receive certain information at inquests or inquiries, and signposting them to support services, for example financial or mental health support. In particular, the IPA will help victims every step of the way, from the immediate aftermath of a tragic event, right through to the conclusion of investigations, inquiries or inquests. We will make IPA support available to the closest next of kin relative, both parents where they are separated or divorced, or to a close friend if there is no close family. That support will also be there for those whose loved ones die after the tragedy as a result of their injuries—a particular issue in relation to Grenfell, as I know from my experience as housing Minister. The IPA will also offer support to injured victims or their representatives.
Secondly and critically, the IPA will give the victims a voice when they need it most. It will advocate on their behalf with public authorities and Government, for example, where they have concerns about the engagement and responsiveness of public authorities such as the police or local authorities, or where the victims and bereaved want an investigation or inquiry set up more swiftly, to ensure maximum transparency.
Thirdly, the IPA will give a voice to the wider communities, not just the directly affected victims and bereaved, that have been affected most by the tragedy in question. To achieve that, we will set up a register of advocates from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas, including doctors, social workers, emergency workers, clergy, people with media-handling experience—often that is another burden that victims will not have experienced—and others. Communities will be able to nominate an advocate to act on their behalf, in order to express their particular concerns and ensure that their voice is heard as a community.
Fourthly, the IPA will be supported by full-time, permanent staff so that it can act swiftly when a tragedy occurs to make sure that the support is there for the victims and the families from day one. Critically, the IPA will be there to consult with and represent victims and their families before any inquiry is set up, so it will be able to make representations on the type of inquiry, whether it is statutory or non-statutory, and other important functional issues, such as the data controller powers available to any inquiry and the relationship it may have with the IPA in the exercise of such functions.
Fifthly, the scope of the IPA will be extended to cover events in England and Wales, but of course we are mindful of the devolved settlements, so we will work with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that our plans are co-ordinated with the support offered outside England and Wales. Finally, although the IPA is first and foremost about doing better by the victims and survivors, it is worth acknowledging that it is also in the wider interests of the public. It will ensure that we achieve a better relationship between public bodies, the Government and the bereaved; that we get better, quicker answers; and that we can learn and act on the lessons from such tragedies more decisively.
I can tell the House that the preparatory work is well under way to establish the IPA, and we will place it on a statutory footing as soon as possible. I will say more about the legislative vehicle shortly.
Of course, there have been other important reforms in recent years to support and empower victims and their families. We have made inquests more sympathetic to the bereaved with a refreshed, accessible guide to coroner services, so the process, which can feel like a minefield to navigate, is easier to digest and understand. We have removed means testing for the exceptional case funding for legal representation at an inquest, which means that applying for legal aid is easier and less intrusive. People who have suffered a traumatic bereavement no longer have to submit the details of their personal finances to the Legal Aid Agency; if their case meets the exceptional case funding criteria, they will be entitled to legal aid whatever their means.
More broadly, we are putting victims at the heart of our justice system by quadrupling victims funding compared with 2010, and we are giving them a louder voice  through the upcoming victims Bill. The creation of an independent public advocate to give greater voice to the victims and the bereaved of major tragedies is the next important step forward.
I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families for their courage and determination despite every setback and to their long-standing struggle to stop other families from enduring the same anguish in future. They have always maintained that their struggle for truth and justice for the 97 was of national significance, and I agree entirely. I also pay tribute to the families of those who died at Grenfell and the Manchester Arena bombing. Our hearts go out to them for their loss and I pay tribute to them for their dignified courage.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to hon. Members in this House and those in the other place who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), Lord Wills, the Mayor of Liverpool and others, for their steadfast commitment to establishing an IPA. I will continue to work closely with all those hon. Members, the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell groups and the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing to ensure that their experiences are taken into account and we get the detail of the IPA right as we establish it.
I pay particular tribute to the right reverend James Jones KBE for his work on Hillsborough and his important report. I met him last week and the Government will respond to the wider report this spring. We know in our heads and hearts that there is still much more to do to heal the wounds from that horrendous and heartbreaking tragedy, but this is an important step forward. The IPA will make a real difference. I commend this statement to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Steve Reed: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. For decades, the Hillsborough families fought for justice and for the truth about how 97 innocent children, women and men were unlawfully killed in wholly avoidable circumstances. They faced a cover-up by public authorities that hid the truth and blamed the victims. Those brave families did more than seek justice for their loved ones; they sought to shine a light on what had gone so tragically wrong, because that is how we learn how not to make the same mistake again, but it should never have taken more than three decades.
I was in Sheffield on that fateful day in 1989, just a mile or so from Hillsborough, with a junior doctor friend who was called back to the hospital to treat the victims and deal with the aftermath, so I vividly remember the horror of what we heard unfolding from the football stadium. I pay tribute to those families for their long struggle for justice and to those who have spoken up for them, notably: my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle); my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne); the  former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); Lord Wills; and the Mayor of Manchester.
Today is a chance to balance the scales of justice and give those victims the voice that they need and the power to make it heard, but it is a chance that the Government have missed. Their proposals do not go far enough and will be too weak, as they stand, to prevent future cover-ups. The public advocate needs to be a fully independent, permanent figure that is accountable to the families, not a panel of advisers appointed as a signposting service by the Government if they see fit.
It is critical that the public advocate has the full power of data controller, not just the power to make representations, as we heard from the Secretary of State. That means having the power to access all data, communications, documents and other information to torpedo cover-ups before they even happen. We know from the Hillsborough Independent Panel that the existence of such powers would be a massive deterrent to future cover-ups.
Will the Secretary of State reconsider and establish a fully independent public advocate? Will he agree to give it the full power of data controller from the start? That matters immensely because without control over the data that can expose the truth, there can be no transparency, and without transparency, there can be no justice. How many more tragedies will it take to wake the Government up? How many more lives need to be lost?
Labour is committed to real change. In government, we will establish a fully independent public advocate that is accountable to survivors and victims’ families. We will arm it with the power it needs to access documents and data to expose the truth about what went wrong, and, importantly, to stop cover-ups before they happen. That will be part of a Hillsborough law with teeth that will also give victims’ families access to legal aid and impose a duty of candour on public officials. We will do that because we believe that victims must be at the heart of the justice system and that they must have a voice and the power to make it heard, and because we understand that a system that fails to learn from its mistakes is doomed to repeat them.

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his partial welcome of the announcement. I listened carefully to what he said. We share, and I personally share with him, the commitment and desire to set up the most credible advocacy for the bereaved, the victims and the families. I am very happy to work with him and hon. Members on both sides of the House on the detail, but I do not accept his characterisation.
The hon. Gentleman said that the IPA was not independent, but in fact it will be decided on the basis of consultations with the victims and the bereaved. That must be right to make sure that we have the right range of experts to deal with the particular circumstances of the tragedy in question. It would act on their behalf; it would not act on behalf of the Government.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to data controller powers. I understand exactly the point he makes, and as I said in my statement, it is important that there will be consultation with the families. The IPA will be able to  consult with a putative independent inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the independent inquiry will have many of those powers itself. Therefore, how would he reconcile that with duplicated powers in the IPA? However, this is something that we should talk about—I know it is an issue that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. We want to get this right, but what we risk is a conflict of functions, which is something we would all want to avoid.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned other measures, such as the duty of candour. That is a broader issue for the Government’s response to the wider Hillsborough report, which is expected in the spring. I know it has been a long time coming, but it is right to deal with those broader issues. Although the IPA is only part of the redress and the accountability, I felt that we were in a position to not just bring forward the policy announcement but in due course, very shortly, to be able to say something about the legislative vehicle. Because this is such an important issue for the bereaved, the victims and the families, I felt it was right to do that now, not wait any longer.

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this statement to the House today and welcome the decision to introduce an independent public advocate, which was of course a commitment in our 2017 manifesto. However, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand, I want to ensure that this body will meet the ambition of the commitment that we made in that manifesto. I am happy to work with him to do that.
For today, though, could my right hon. Friend please just go back to two particular issues? One is the question of whether the families, victims and survivors will be able themselves to initiate the independent public advocate, so that they are not relying on the Government to do that for them. Certainly, in the case of Hillsborough, it was the fact that the state and state authorities shut their doors to people that led to the 34 years’ wait for any answers for the families. Also, in line with that, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the IPA is able to compel the provision of information and evidence to the families? He is assuming that an inquiry will always take place, but that might not be the case. It is essential that the families have answers to their perfectly reasonable questions.

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute again to her for her campaigning and advocacy on this issue. On the right of initiative, the Government will ultimately have to decide the shape of any IPA that is set up. The right of consultation is clearly set out, but of course, one of the challenges will be where different views are expressed as to how the IPA should be configured for a particular inquiry. Ultimately, where there are differences, the Government will have to try to reconcile those, so in committing to an IPA, I think it is right to allow the Government to engage and to allow the victims, the bereaved and the families the power of initiative to call for an IPA and make their representations, but to allow the Government to decide the precise configuration of that IPA.
I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the compulsion of evidence. As I said before, I am very happy to engage with her and with other hon.  Members as this policy comes forward. I take her point that an inquiry may not be set up, but where one is set up, the piece that we need to reconcile is making sure that we do not have conflicting powers. But again, I am very happy to work with my right hon. Friend on the detail of this policy and, in due course, on the clauses.

Maria Eagle: I welcome the fact that the Government want to legislate for a public advocate, five years after the consultation that they undertook closed, but I am very disappointed with the provisions as the Secretary of State has set them out. His proposed public advocate would not be independent, would not be a data controller, and would not be able to act only at the behest of families. It would be directed by the Secretary of State. It would not have the power to appoint independent panels such as the Hillsborough independent panel—but at a much earlier stage following a disaster than the 23 years it took us to get that report out—and it would not have the power to use transparency to get at the truth at an early stage and torpedo the cover-ups that public authorities set about undertaking in the aftermath of disasters. This must be something that the families themselves can initiate and use to get at the truth at an early stage.
The public advocate having the power to compel—to produce documentation and shine the light of transparency on what public authorities have done in the immediate aftermath of a disaster—would stop cover-ups. It would mean people not still having to fight to get at the truth 34 years later. That prize is within our grasp if we set this up right, so does the Secretary of State accept that if he does not beef up his proposals significantly, he will be missing an important opportunity to stop things going wrong for families? For what it is worth, I am perfectly willing to indicate to him in detail quite how those proposals ought to be improved.

Dominic Raab: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. She has worked tirelessly on this issue, and we have very good engagement on it; I am happy for that to continue. I take her point about the power of initiative. The families of the bereaved will have a power of initiative through consultation, but if there are conflicting views—something that I have seen before at first hand—the Government will have to reconcile those views in the last analysis.
Secondly, on the point about data, I am happy to keep listening and working on this issue, but if we have an inquiry that has powers to compel evidence of its own, the problem will be how we reconcile those powers where they are competing in a process. But as I have said, it is important that we bring this policy forward. There will be full scrutiny of it, and as we develop the clauses, I am very happy to keep working with the right hon. Lady.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Bob Neill: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), a fellow member of the Justice Committee, for the work she has done, and to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
The former Prime Minister’s point about the risk of cover-ups by those in authority is an important one. That is why, while I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said—it is an important step—I hope that when engaging on how best to refine and advance these proposals, he looks again at the Justice Committee’s recommendation that there should be an extension of legal aid availability. Although the situation has already improved, we should be extending non-means-tested legal aid to all cases where there are mass fatalities, or where public bodies are potentially at fault. It is not fair—there is no equality of arms—when those public bodies are represented by teams of lawyers, but the bereaved families have to rely on sometimes getting legal aid and sometimes not, or on pro bono representation. Equality of arms would surely mean representation as a matter of right in those cases.

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I think that this policy will create stronger advocacy on behalf of the bereaved, the victims and the families, and having panels with the right expertise, range and status will go a long way towards getting the answers.
Again, I understand the point about compulsion of evidence. There is not a theological objection to it, certainly as far as I am concerned: it is a question of reconciling competing powers when an inquiry is set up. I will, of course, look at the Justice Committee’s report and recommendations on that issue. In general, of course, inquiries are not supposed to be adversarial, which is why the rules in relation to legal aid are as they are, but we will look at this and work with colleagues in all parts of the House as we introduce these important clauses.

Ian Byrne: I welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement that we need to legislate for an independent public advocate, but I am sorry to say that today’s announcement is a pale imitation of what Hillsborough families and survivors spent years campaigning on. The Government’s proposal feels like a weak signposting service. It does not have any of the powers that a truly independent public advocate would require—it feels so weak.
For me, the key question is whether this proposal would have stopped the state cover-ups of Hillsborough, the contaminated blood scandal and so many other cover-ups over the ages, and whether it will prevent further cover-ups. Unfortunately, I have to say that the answer is no, so will the Secretary of State instead adopt the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, which is ready to go, and work with us to bring the Hillsborough law—including a fully independent public advocate—into legislation?

Dominic Raab: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts. I am afraid I do not accept the characterisation; calling it a signposting service is quite wrong. By the way, the signposting is important, but that is the start, not the end of the role of the IPA. It will be set up as a statutory advocate for all those who have been affected, whether individual victims or on behalf of the community as a whole. As of its own status, it will be impossible to ignore.
On the specific functions beyond those I set out in my statement, I am very happy to keep engaging, but I think that Members need to think about the practicalities, for example with data compulsion, and how we make sure that they can be reconciled. I hope that we will be able to continue working together to make sure that victims and the bereaved, particularly of pre-existing tragedies, such as Hillsborough, but also those in the future feel they are better equipped to get the answers and accountability that they need.

Edward Timpson: I join other Members in welcoming today’s statement and the important step that it takes, as well as recognising that the legislative process to follow will provide opportunities to strengthen the role and ensure that it delivers what we set out all the way back in 2017, not least trying to ensure that we can safeguard the independence of the IPA from Government. Can I ask my right hon. Friend how “survivors” will be defined? Will it simply be those who have had a life-changing injury, or will it also include those who may have been physically or mentally changed by their experience of a disaster they have been involved with and their need to have support and advice through that inquiry process?

Dominic Raab: We will work very closely with my hon. and learned Friend and colleagues on the definition. It is important to get that right. It will be an independent advocate once it is established, with the full force of expression and advocacy to get the answers that are required. As I have said before, I am happy to work with colleagues to make sure that we get the right balance and, in particular, to get the IPA to be as effective as possible, whether in relation to an inquiry, statutory or otherwise, or indeed when an inquiry is not established.

Dan Carden: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today and the willingness to legislate in this area. As he has heard already today, nothing less than an independent public advocate acting at the behest of families, not directed by the Secretary of State, and with specific powers, will do. How is he engaging with Members in this place, others who have campaigned on these issues for years and, most important, the Hillsborough families? My constituent Deanna Matthews wrote to me—her uncle Brian was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough—to share her dismay about the lack of engagement with bereaved families ahead of this announcement. Can he tell me how he is engaging with those concerned?

Dominic Raab: Just to be clear, the advocate will be entirely independent once it is established, so the characterisation is not accurate. In terms of engagement, I am caught a little bit in terms of the detail by the strictures of Mr Speaker in making announcements to this place first, but I wrote to the families, the bereaved and the various groups from Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester bombings, so they have had advance sight. One of the concerns now is the lack of detail, which I could not provide in advance of the statement. I did consult Bishop James Jones, and I saw him over the last week. I am committed to working with all those families—I know Grenfell United and some of those  well from my time as Housing Minister—to make sure that we get this right and, above all, get them the most effective means of giving them the transparency and accountability they need.

Rob Butler: I warmly welcome this announcement by the Government of the establishment of an independent public advocate, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), with whom I have sat on the Justice Committee and who I know has worked tirelessly on this for many years. I was at university at the time of the Hillsborough disaster in Sheffield, and sadly a friend of mine died in that tragedy, so I know all too well the frustration that the bereaved families have felt ever since. Can my right hon. Friend tell us in more detail how he will ensure that the families of the bereaved of the Hillsborough disaster will be fully involved in the practicalities of the establishment of the advocate?

Dominic Raab: I am very sorry for my hon. Friend’s loss in relation to Hillsborough. I mentioned some of the engagement there has been. I have offered to meet the families and their groups, in relation to not just Hillsborough but Grenfell and the Manchester Arena bombing. I have always found in these cases, when facing the bereaved or survivors of such dire tragedies, that the most important thing is that they feel they have access, and I am very happy to meet any of them.

Alison McGovern: I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and I just wonder whether the Secretary of State has actually read previous debates on this issue in Hansard, because 12 years and five months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and many other Members of this House and I stood here seeking the power to compel the Government to release papers on Hillsborough and to get transparency over that information, yet all this time later, here we are again, still debating who has the power to compel information—in other words, how we as citizens can have the power to get to the truth.
I also want to ask the Secretary of State about extending the duty of candour to public servants so that they have to proactively tell the truth, because without this information we will, as my right hon. Friend has said, always be liable to these cover-ups. I saw it through all of the process with Hillsborough, with Lakanal House, with Grenfell and with the covid inquiry—again and again. I want the Secretary of State to understand this issue properly; it is about the truth. Will he explain what he is going to do on the duty of candour?

Dominic Raab: I know the hon. Lady cares deeply about this subject. I am familiar with these challenges from my time as Housing Minister, aside from the issue of Hillsborough, which I followed closely.
I totally understand the importance of the duty of candour. I have never said that the IPA is the whole picture; I said that it is a partial but important step that we are taking. It is better to get on with it, because after so long, one thing that I get from the communities, victims and survivors is the need to get on with tangible action—that is the way we will restore confidence. Thy  duty of candour was included in the report by Bishop James Jones, and therefore it is right that is part of the Home Office response. As has been set out previously, the Home Office will publish that response in the spring, and of course it will cover that issue.

Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend explain in a little more detail at what point and under what circumstances the availability of the advocate will be triggered? I see that he or she could be involved in not just inquiries but inquests, so how large a tragedy does it have to be before the victims and the bereaved can call upon his or her services?

Dominic Raab: I thank the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who raises a very good point. The principle is that the advocate is there for major tragedies. This is a specific institution set up with a range of expertise designed to deal with that. It is not dealing with one loss of life or a smaller event like that. We will need to work closely with Members on the definition to get that right.

Maria Eagle: Take up my Bill.

Dominic Raab: There are many good things in the right hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill, but there is more we can do than just that, and there are some areas where, as she knows from her engagement with me—we talked about this at some length, and I am always happy to continue engaging—we take a different view. The most important thing, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made this point well, is to make the advocate as effective as possible. I am committed to that, and I am committed to working with Members in all parts of the House.

Derek Twigg: As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was at the Hillsborough disaster. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), I worked closely with the families, particularly in the lead-up to the decision of the independent panel, so we know quite a bit about the impact on families and what families and victims want. I came to this statement today when I saw its heading, about an independent public advocate, but I am going away not sure what “independent” means, because the Government have not set out clearly how independent it will be. It appears to me, from what the Secretary of State has said, that it will not be totally independent. I am surprised, given that there has been so much discussion in this Chamber, including with my right hon. Friend, that the Secretary of State has come here today and it is still a bit muddled. What does “independent” mean? If it is truly independent, it means that Ministers have no role in it whatever.

Dominic Raab: To be clear, on the right of initiative, which I know the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has raised and included in her Bill, there could be different views as to its shape or scope, so that is something the Government will ultimately have the last word on. Frankly, what the hon. Gentleman said about the IPA not being independent is wholly wrong. We ought to be clear that, from the point of establishment in relation to a tragedy, the IPA will be  wholly and entirely independent to serve the victims, the bereaved and the survivors, and only them. I could not be clearer on the subject.

Kevin Foster: A lot of the statement is welcome and will hopefully rebalance the position for families and victims, not least since they have had the unedifying experience of facing phalanxes of lawyers, knowing they were being paid for by their own taxes and by public funds to sometimes cover up the impact on their relatives. However, I do not find myself particularly persuaded on the points made by the Secretary of State around the compulsion of evidence, which strikes me as something that needs to be part of this. In his preparation work, which he referred to, what timeline has he set for this institution being up and ready, pending the legislation coming through the House?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The policy work is quite far developed, but of course we have not foreclosed options so that we can have maximum transparency and proper engagement. I will need to identify the right legislative vehicle and it will then take as long as the House takes to enact it, but I hope to say more on the legislative vehicle shortly.

Diana R. Johnson: I put it to the Secretary of State that, in the case of the contaminated blood scandal, Governments failed to acknowledge what actually happened for decades, even though thousands of people had been harmed and died. The scandal is now recognised as one of the worst treatment disasters in the history of the NHS. How would this independent public advocate work in circumstances where incidents happen over many years and across many parts of the United Kingdom, and where Governments fail to come clean about the involvement of the state for years and deny that there was a problem? What confidence would victims actually have in a situation where the Government decided whether an independent public advocate was appointed?

Dominic Raab: We are talking about the final configuration of the IPA, and the immediate consultation will take place with the families and the bereaved. On how it would help in a scenario like that, that is precisely why—with the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady—we went for a panel approach, so that we have a range of experts. A disaster like she mentions would be quite different from, say, Hillsborough or Grenfell, and it is therefore important that the IPA has that range of expertise. I take the point about compulsion of data and evidence, and that is something I am happy to keep looking at, but, frankly, from the moment an independent public advocate starts asking those questions, given the nature of its status in statute, it would break down many of the barriers that have previously faced victims in these situations.

Andy Carter: I agree fully with my right hon. Friend when he says getting the detail right is vital in this process. I am pleased with the tone he has taken in his comments about being willing to work with Members from across the House to reach the right settlement for victims and ensure that this process is right for the future. Will he expand more on the panel he is planning? In particular, will victims be fully represented? Could they elect people to go on this panel to advocate for people involved in a tragedy?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right: the point of having a range of expertise on the panels, rather than a single public advocate, is precisely to ensure that there is a range of expertise to deal with the nature of the unfolding tragedy, but also to allow the victims, the bereaved and the families to be properly consulted. In addition, they will have the ability to nominate a community-level representative on that panel to ensure that, as well as dealing with technical issues and with individuals being represented, the community as a whole and its concerns, which are often expressed as a whole, are properly reflected in that advocacy.

Margaret Greenwood: I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families and all those affected for their tireless campaigning over decades to establish the truth of what happened and their determination to ensure that other families do not have to suffer the injustices they have been forced to endure. I pay tribute in particular to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for all their hard work on this matter.
The Secretary of State talks about a conflict between the IPA and any inquiry. Surely he must recognise that it is vital that victims and families feel confident that they have a truly independent advocate. Surely he must also recognise that, by definition, we cannot have too much transparency.

Dominic Raab: I certainly agree with the thrust of that. The IPA will be fully independent once it is established, with all the powers of advocacy and with the expertise to give voice and expression to the victims and the bereaved. On the compulsion of data or access to evidence, we need to ensure that we reconcile that with the powers an inquiry might be exercising and that we do not end up with either a legal muddle or an ineffective process.

Kieran Mullan: I join colleagues in paying tribute to my fellow member of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for her long campaigning on this issue, which the whole House recognises.
I am interested in the issue of legal representation that other Members have raised. How would the IPA interact with that, and what support might be there in accessing legal advice when, as others have said, it may face public bodies with well-funded legal teams that family members will not necessarily have access to?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In general, inquests should be inquisitorial, fact-checking processes, and the 2019 review into legal aid for inquests, which he may recall, underlined the importance of us keeping it that way. There are, of course, circumstances, such as article 2 inquests or where there is significant public interest in the outcome, where legal representation may be available under exceptional case funding. I mentioned more about the detail of how that will work in my statement.

Mick Whitley: For bereaved families to have confidence in an independent public advocate, it needs to be truly independent of Government. That means acting on the directions of families and not the Secretary of State, exercising the powers of a data controller and being empowered to establish independent panels. Elkan Abrahamson, the co-author of the Hillsborough law, has said this Government’s engagement with the Hillsborough families has been “almost non-existent”, and it shows. Will the Justice Secretary commit to meeting with the Hillsborough families with a view to revising his proposals and bringing them in line with what the Hillsborough families have long been calling for?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have already made clear the level of engagement we have had before, and of course I am willing to meet with representatives or directly with the families involved.

Clive Efford: I understand that the Secretary of State could not divulge the detail of today’s announcement to the families who had been campaigning, but does he believe they would recognise the independent advocate he has announced as what they have been campaigning for on behalf of the people they lost?

Dominic Raab: I hope that they would, particularly as we engage with them on the detail. As I said, it will be fully independent. I take the points that have been made about the right of initiative and powers over data; we are always willing to look at the detail of how that will work, but we want to make sure that we have the most effective means of giving expression and voice to people in their time of need.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Chloe Rutherford and Liam Curry from South Shields were tragically murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Archaic law on terror attacks prevents their parents from registering their precious children’s deaths. Last week they again met Ministers, who this time treated them with contempt, patronised them and insulted them. In that meeting, it became clear that they have been misled by the Government for nearly a year: the law can be changed but the Government simply choose not to change it. Registration is now imminent. The IPA will not help them or other families. How on earth can they believe the Secretary of State when he says that victims and the bereaved are at the heart of his response?

Dominic Raab: If the hon. Lady looks at what we are doing in the round, I think she will see the steps we are taking. I am very mindful of and sensitive to the issues that she describes and, indeed, the constituents who lost their lives in that appalling attack. As the hon. Lady will know, the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which is owned by the Home Office, and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 set out the process for registering deaths following an inquest, which requires the coroner to inform the registrar of particulars of the deceased. As the law is currently configured, there is no flexibility around that, but I reiterate my deepest sympathies to the families who were so tragically bereaved.

Turkey and Syria Earthquakes

Andrew Mitchell: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Turkey and Syria. I know that the House will join me in offering sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent earthquakes.
Last week when I visited Turkey, I witnessed at first hand the terrible scale of human suffering. I also had the opportunity to speak to Syrian partners and the United Nations about their work on the immediate response. I pay tribute to the hundreds of British personnel engaged in specialist health, humanitarian and rescue work in Syria and Turkey. I saw for myself the outstanding work that Britain is doing on the ground to save lives and support those who are suffering. Throughout these events and our responses, there has been excellent co-ordination across the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Care.
Today, the death toll across Turkey and Syria stands at more than 48,000, and at least 118,000 people have been injured. Approximately 25 million people have been affected, with homes, businesses and key infrastructure destroyed. The further earthquakes on 20 and 27 February, which have tragically led to additional deaths, show that the danger has not passed. In Syria, this disaster adds to years of turmoil inflicted by conflict, striking hardest in the very place that has borne the brunt of Assad’s war machine.
I turn to the initial response. Turkey requested international support immediately after the earthquakes. The UK Government delivered aid as swiftly as possible, working closely with Turkey, the United Nations, international partners, non-governmental organisations and charities. That included deploying a 77-strong search and rescue team in Turkey, along with state-of-the-art heavy equipment. We also quickly announced £4.3 million in new support to Syria Civil Defence—the White Helmets—who have carried out search and rescue operations in 60 villages, helping thousands of civilians. The British Government rapidly engaged with the Turkish Government at the highest level, and the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad and I immediately spoke to the senior UN humanitarian officials to ensure a rapid and co-ordinated response in Syria.
As part of the immediate response, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office set up a field hospital in Türkoğlu, including an emergency department and a 24/7 operating theatre. I saw for myself 150 UK-Med and Ministry of Defence personnel working side by side with Turkish medics to save lives. I was deeply impressed and moved during my visit by the lifesaving work that those teams are doing. Together, they have treated more than 5,000 patients so far.
Meanwhile, the UK has delivered 465 tonnes of relief items to Turkey and Syria through civilian and Royal Air Force flights. That includes tents and thermal blankets for families made homeless in freezing conditions, as well as solar lanterns, water purification tablets and hygiene kits. On 15 February, we announced a further £25 million in funding to bolster our humanitarian response. That is supporting the work of the UN and aid agencies on the ground in Syria, helping communities  ravaged by war, as well as by this natural disaster. It also continues to support the recovery effort in Turkey, led by its Government.
Beyond our support to the White Helmets, UK-funded charities and NGOs in northern Syria have cared for the injured through mobile medical teams and health centres. The UN has distributed food and other essential items, to which the UK has contributed. Further assistance will be delivered in the coming days as part of the UN’s Syria cross-border humanitarian fund, to which the UK is one of the most significant donors. The fund has already allocated $50 million to scale up the response. There is a particular focus on displaced families, the elderly, women, children and people with disabilities.
The UK has also supported and bolstered the response through our existing support to key multilateral organisations that are helping in Turkey and Syria. The UN’s global fund, Education Cannot Wait, announced a $7 million grant for Syrian children affected by the earthquake, and the Global Partnership for Education will provide $3.75 million to support the emergency education response. The UK is one of the most significant donors to both funds.
We are also a long-standing partner and donor to the World Bank, which announced $1.7 billion to assist Turkey, and the United Nations central emergency response fund, which has released $50 million for the crisis. Most significantly, our constituents—the British public—have demonstrated extraordinary generosity through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, raising more than £100 million. That figure includes £5 million from the UK taxpayer in matched seed funding.
His Majesty the King visited Turkish diaspora groups and members of the British Syrian community at Syria House, a donation point in Trafalgar Square, on 14 February. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Syria House on 16 February.
It is clearly vital to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it as efficiently as possible in Syria. I will continue to engage with the United Nations to ensure maximum access for as long as is required. We welcome the accelerated pace of United Nations deliveries and are monitoring the situation closely in the Security Council in New York.
The House will understand that the scale of this tragedy is immense. The UK will continue to stand in solidarity with Turkey and with the people of Syria during these most testing of times. I commend this statement to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Preet Kaur Gill: I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement.
We have all been deeply shocked by the scenes from Turkey and north-west Syria. The damage done and the loss of life inflicted by these earthquakes and aftershocks is incomprehensible. The death toll in the two countries has surpassed 48,000 people. About 25 million people have been affected—a staggering figure—and homes, businesses and key infrastructure have been destroyed. We are looking at a damage area of more than 50,000 sq km.
The Labour party and, I am sure, each hon. Member present send our deepest condolences, thoughts and sympathies to all those whose lives have been devastated by this appalling tragedy. The many heartfelt contributions that Members across the House made to last Thursday’s Westminster Hall debate demonstrate the strength of support for the people of Syria and Turkey at this time.
Turkey is, of course, a close NATO ally and partner of the United Kingdom. There are many close ties of family and friendship between us, as there are with the people of Syria, many of whom have fled from the crisis there to be in the United Kingdom. We are duty-bound as a nation to respond to the challenges posed by this disaster in the long term as well as the short term, even as the cameras and headlines move on. While we have seen countless images of despair and devastation, I am sure that all of us have heard the stories of bravery, resilience and hope. I hope that this disaster can show that the spirit of humanitarianism still prevails across much of the world.
The response of the British public has been incredible. More than £30 million was donated on the first day of the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, which has now raised more than £100 million. That shows the British public at their best: generous, outward-looking and deeply concerned for the welfare of others around the globe.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the search and rescue teams that sprang to action within hours of the tragedy to assist in saving people trapped under the rubble of buildings that had collapsed. Speed was absolutely critical in those first 72 hours, and I was very proud to see how quickly British forces mobilised on a flight out to Gaziantep. In particular, I thank the volunteers from West Midlands Fire Service: Shyam, Shaun, Mark, Aghia, James, Mark, Joe and Paul, who flew out to Turkey, and Rob and Hannah, who supported from the United Kingdom.
The UK Government were right to respond quickly in those first 72 hours. Our support to the White Helmets was vital while humanitarian access to north-west Syria was impeded, and the delivery of medical assistance, rescue equipment and sniffer dogs to the disaster area has been important to help people in the immediate aftermath. However, we are now in a new phase of our response, and our support must not stop there. People are in need of emergency accommodation, food, healthcare, water and sanitary health, and the largest single need is for emergency shelter in both countries.
The earthquake has not only resulted in additional displacement, but diminished the prospects for the safe return of internally displaced persons from earthquake-affected areas. Even before the earthquake, an estimated 4.1 million people in north-west Syria relied on aid to meet their basic needs. The UN estimates that, in north-west Syria, 120 schools have been destroyed and 57 hospitals have been partially damaged or forced to suspend their services following the earthquakes. That is absolutely devastating. For those who survive, hunger, dirty water and the bitter winter cold still pose a significant threat. It is in Britain’s interests to support Turkey and Syria. Turkey hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees  displaced abroad due to the country’s civil war, and in some of the affected areas 50% of the population in Turkey are refugees.
Through multilateralism and common purpose, we can stand together in the face of tragedy and do more than we can alone. The work that the UK has supported through our multilateral partners is significant, and it is a reminder of the many important partnerships that the UK has led in and often helped found over the years. The UN appeals for Turkey and Syria have now been announced, with a combined $1.4 billion requested for both countries over the next three months. As yet, the UK has not announced any further direct support since the launch of the two appeals. What is the Minister doing to co-ordinate and scale up the humanitarian response with our international partners in the United Nations?
On the £30 million announced so far, can the Minister say over what timeframe it will be disbursed and how it will be distributed between the two countries? Crucially, will he confirm where that support has been drawn from, and that it will not be taken from other planned in-country work or other humanitarian crises, such as those in east Africa and Yemen? According to reports, in December the Syria country team was asked to find cuts of between £6 million and £8 million. That would be utterly unconscionable in the light of the disaster that has befallen people who have already suffered so much. Can the Minister today confirm whether those cuts will still go ahead? Ministers have been asked about that twice and have not answered either time, so I would be grateful for some answers today.
Humanitarian access in Syria remains an ongoing challenge. The obstruction of Bab al-Hawa, the only border crossing into Syria, in the first week following the earthquake meant lifesaving support could not reach people who needed it. It has been disgraceful to see the damage that Russia’s political game playing on the UN Security Council has done to people there by restricting humanitarian access. It is important and welcome, therefore, that the UN has brokered an agreement to reopen two further crossings for three months. However, this agreement must be extended. Most of the aid packages crossing the border have only a 12-week lifespan. Moreover, UN convoys are severely lagging compared with before the earthquake. On average, roughly 650 to 700 trucks per month were passing through before the earthquake, but now, with two more crossing points available, only 493 have accessed north-west Syria.
A long-term strategy for aid and support is needed. What diplomatic efforts are the UK making to extend this agreement beyond three months and to hold authorities to their word on humanitarian access? Will the Minister set out a long-term strategy for the UK’s support to the region, and does he recognise the interplay between the earthquake and the conflict in Syria?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for the tone in which she delivered them; the House is completely united on such occasions, and particularly on this one. She underlined the British commitment and that of our constituents. I agree about the extraordinary international response across so many different countries that she mentioned. She mentioned the search and rescue team, which of course left from Birmingham  airport, close to her constituency and mine. She also mentioned the strong British support to the White Helmets, whose leaders I met on my recent visit.
The hon. Lady asked about tents and blankets. I can tell her that Britain has delivered something like 3,350 tents to both Syria and Turkey, as well as 24,000 thermal blankets to Turkey and 17,000 to Syria, making a total of 41,000. She also mentioned the damage that has been done to schools, and I mentioned in my statement that Education Cannot Wait has allocated $7 million as a result of this crisis. However, I was in Geneva a couple of weeks ago for the replenishment for Education Cannot Wait, and Britain was able to find an additional £80 million to support the very important work that Education Cannot Wait is conducting.
The hon. Lady asked me about cuts in Syria. I can tell her that in 2021 we pledged £205 million for Syria, but we actually delivered £232 million. This year the figure has been reduced, but we are confident that, by the end of this month, £158 million will have been delivered. I would just emphasise to her that, to the support for refugees from Syria, Britain has contributed very substantially over the years since this crisis first started in Syria. In fact, we have contributed more than the whole of the European Union added together, with a figure of something like £3.8 billion.
Finally, on the crossings, the hon. Lady is right that there have been considerable difficulties. In the early stage, the one crossing that was open was damaged by the earthquake, but the most recent information indicates that, while 358 trucks have got across from Bab al-Hawa, 82 trucks have now got through at Bab al-Salam and 16 at al-Rai. That is something in the order of 456 trucks, so the food and supplies are moving.

Matthew Offord: Two weeks ago I was in Syria, and I saw for myself the refusal to open the borders with Turkey, and the reticence of the Syrian Government to allow humanitarian aid to enter the north-east autonomous region was causing additional suffering. Does the Minister share my revulsion that the drone missile attacks have continued, with the killing of a Syrian Democratic Forces soldier as recently as 12 February in Kobane, while I was there?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend has seen at first hand the impact of the Syrian regime on those poor people who have suffered not only from Assad and the Russian war machine, but now from this dreadful earthquake. The access that my hon. Friend rightly says is desperately needed was the result of the negotiations by the head of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths, who deserves considerable credit for the speed and efficacy of the way he got them opened.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martin Docherty: Let me also thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. Let me also join the House in expressing condolences and sympathy, on behalf of those on the SNP Benches, to the peoples of Turkey and Syria, who have suffered the most powerful earthquakes in the  region for over 80 years, releasing the catastrophes we see now compounding the suffering of the peoples of the region.
With an estimated 500,000 people of Turkish origin living across the UK and an estimated 28,000 Syrian nationals, I think we can all agree on how personal much of this loss is to many of our constituents. Let me welcome the Department’s decision to send further support to Turkey, and I commend the Department for co-ordinating with the UN on support for those in Syria. That said, it is always important that the international community continues to listen to those on the ground, including the UN, the Red Crescent and, of course, the White Helmets in the coming days and weeks, so that we can deliver the best relief and assistance possible. I am sure that the Minister and the Department are doing just that.
Let me ask three specific questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), in a written parliamentary question, has already asked the International Development Minister whether the Department plans to provide additional funding to the World Food Programme to help tackle immediate humanitarian needs in both Turkey and Syria. The Minister responded:
“The UK currently has no plans to provide additional funding to the World Food Programme.”
That question was asked because the World Food Programme says it requires $46 million over the next three to four months to address the immediate needs. Will the Minister reconsider the decision not to pledge to the World Food Programme and make a substantial donation?
In addition, the European Commission has announced that it will organise a donor conference for Syria and Turkey to mobilise funding, to be held in March. Will the Minister provide clarity on the Government’s attendance, as they are eligible to attend? Will his Government pledge generously and early to that campaign? Finally, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the north-east have pledged to facilitate the delivery of aid. It has been reported that the United States will fly aid to Qamishli, a city controlled by the SDF, where it will be transported by land to the affected region. Will the Minister outline whether UK aid will be flown in through that route as well?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Scottish National party spokesman for his comments about the work of British service and search and rescue personnel, and of others in my Department, given their hard work throughout many nights and days when this terrible event took place. He asked three questions. We are very significant funders of the World Food Programme. On whether we decide to use that route to provide additional help in Syria and Turkey, we will have to wait and see, but for the moment we have responded and made sure that UK aid gets through to those who need it at this point in the crisis.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether funding will be considered for the Turkey-Syria fundraising conference. We will look at that at the time, but I assure him and the House that we have been right up there in the lead on making sure that critical needs are met. On the third and final question he asked, we will make sure, in every way we can, that aid gets through to people in north-east  Syria. We will use whatever means are available to us. As I hope he has seen from what has happened already, Britain has not been shy in pressing these points to make sure that the aid gets through.

Robert Courts: Will the Minister join me in thanking my constituents at Royal Air Force Brize Norton for the significant help that they have given to the people of Turkey? I am thinking in particular of the tactical medical wing, which has been deployed and is giving the medical assistance that he spoke of, and the wider air mobility force that, on top of significant other tasking requirements, has moved the aid so swiftly. Simply put, without them British aid would not be going anywhere. They ought to have our thanks.

Andrew Mitchell: I very much agree. My hon. Friend is right that the support of the Royal Air Force has been quite exceptional during this crisis. Across Whitehall—the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Department of Health and Social Care—there has been a quite unusual degree of cohesion and excellent co-operation.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

Sarah Champion: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his personal interest in this topic. It has been fantastic to see the international community come together to support this region. But as we move from the rescue to the recovery phase of the earthquake response, could he give more detail about the UK Government’s long-term commitment to NGOs and UN partners, particularly in Syria, which is already suffering hugely? Could he focus on the help that communities will get to rebuild their lives?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for what she has said. The international community has done extraordinarily well in rallying together to meet the needs that the Turkish Government have set out, and to estimate and try to meet the needs in northern Syria. The co-operation between Greece and Turkey, for example, has been enormously heartening. She will appreciate that the £100 million raised from across our country will go to 15 British and international charities that are household names. We have allocated £43.3 million across the piece, which has paid for search and rescue, medical work in Turkey, and UK and aid agencies working inside Syria. The White Helmets funding of £4.3 million goes to help the 3,000 White Helmets who are operating in northern Syria, in 60 different areas.
The House should also look at the multilateral pound—the money going in, which I mentioned, through the Central Emergency Response Fund, which was invented by Britain and to which we have contributed $1.7 billion since its inception. That will be deployed in both countries. I have mentioned Education Cannot Wait, but the Global Partnership for Education programme has allocated £3.75 million. The effect of all that will be a very substantial British input. I can assure the hon. Lady that we will watch carefully what is going on. If further British leadership and money are required, we will certainly consider deploying it.

Louie French: The earthquakes in Turkey and Syria have been heartbreaking to watch. I welcome the support that His Majesty’s Government are providing, and I pay tribute to the British rescue teams. As always, our community in Bexley has come together with care and compassion following the disaster, with many local businesses and residents donating what they could. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all the local residents of Bexley, especially Councillor Andy Dourmoush, the Turkish School at Blackfen School, Sidcup Partners, St John’s Church Sidcup, Barry and the Welling town centre businesses, and the Lighthouse charity for all their efforts collecting donations and vital aid?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for telling us what is happening in Bexley. All across the country, our constituents have responded magnificently to the appalling situation in Turkey and Syria. It is on such occasions that we see Britain at its best—going first and with effect to people in desperate jeopardy.

Layla Moran: The scenes in Turkey and northern Syria are without doubt a tragedy. My heart goes out to all those who have lost their lives or who find themselves without shelter or sanitation. This has been a difficult time for the diaspora here at home. It is vital that the Government show global leadership not just in aid but in helping people to get out if they need to. Will the Government consider a new expedited temporary visa scheme, as has been introduced in Germany, for those with relatives here in the UK so that they can come and stay with their families and get the support that they desperately need?

Andrew Mitchell: We have no plans to introduce a scheme of the type that the hon. Lady describes, but the visa centre in Adana is now open again. The consular services that we are able to offer, particularly in Turkey, were back up and running very quickly after the crisis struck. I hope that she will feel that, although we cannot make any commitment to such a scheme, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the normal consular and visa services are available.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, this is a humanitarian disaster on a massive scale. I commend my right hon. Friend for his work, as I would expect, given his long experience in this field. The British people have been incredibly generous, as he said, with £100 million donated. Given that all our condolences and thoughts are with the families of those affected by the earthquake, what advice can he give to those who want to give money to ensure that it gets to the frontline? How do they give it, where do they give it, and can we ensure that organisations that might not be acting in the best interests of the people affected do not get the money?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend asks an extremely important question. People are still seeking to give donations because they can see the full scale of what has happened. The answer is that the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal is a highly effective way of getting money through to 15 immensely respected organisations that really can deliver on the ground. The details are available online. Money delivered to the Disasters Emergency Committee will get through to where it is really needed.

Feryal Clark: I was pleased to hear about the Minister’s trip to Turkey and the continued aid support to Turkey and Syria. He will know that thousands of my constituents have been personally impacted by the earthquake, having lost loved ones and friends. Hundreds have written to me and to Government Ministers because they want to provide temporary relief for family members who have lost everything. Will the Minister tell me why the Government will not support their calls for an expedited temporary visa scheme?

Andrew Mitchell: We do not believe that that is the right way to handle the situation in Turkey that the hon. Lady describes. I know that in her constituency she has many families who are suffering and to whom the whole House will want to send their condolences. What I can say is that I saw for myself, on my visit on 19 February to Türkoğlu, the quite extraordinary work by 150 British medical and military personnel on the ground, working with their Turkish counterparts not only in the field hospital set up by the MOD and the FCDO but in the two British emergency medical clinics. I can tell her that in terms of the need on the ground, Britain has been doing everything it can to help. I have seen for myself both the shattered towns and cities in the aftermath of the earthquake, and the brilliant work being done by Britain, together with our Turkish counterparts, to try to make things better.

Edward Timpson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive and reassuring statement, which demonstrates that the UK is more than playing its part in delivering vital humanitarian aid needed in Syria and Turkey. To that end, will the additional commitment he made to the Education Cannot Wait UK global fund mean that the amount of funding already announced is likely to grow in future as we hopefully move to a rebuild and recovery part of this disaster, because education will be key for many children who have lost their schools?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to make the point about the need to restore schools. Otherwise, on top of everything else, children will miss out on education, one of the key ladders for opportunity in their later lives. Education Cannot Wait, a charity Britain has been enormously supportive of, is a key area that can make an immediate effect. That is why we were so pleased to see it respond with $7 million of support in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.

Alison McGovern: Many people in the Wirral have been fundraising as well; it is so good to see Britain coming together. I know that because of that, the Minister will have given the thanks of everyone in this House to our brilliant civil servants who have been helping and to all those he has met who are engaged in the response. On what he said about the United Nations, does he think we can now get better collaboration and support in pursuit of safety and care for civilians in Syria?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She knows a lot about these difficulties and she rightly says that the United Nations is the key to restoring basic services and the ability of people caught up in this terrible earthquake in northern Syria to survive. I believe  that Martin Griffiths and his colleagues across the six agencies actively taking aid into northern Syria have wrestled at speed, and with effect, with the early problems, some of which were as a result of the earthquake damaging the infrastructure of crossings. I think she can now have confidence, as I have confidence, that the UN is delivering on the ground.

Kate Osamor: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber and giving us the statement. Natural disasters show the importance of having a well-funded crisis reserve that can provide timely emergency aid. Previously, that reserve totalled £500 million, yet today it is now only £30 million. Can the Minister explain how it has been allocated this year and whether he will use it to support relief efforts until the end of this financial year?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady makes a good point about the importance of a crisis reserve. That is the reason why Britain set up the CERF, the fund I mentioned earlier which is now deploying $50 million, so she is entirely right about that. That is the multilateral spend. In terms of the bilateral spend, the humanitarian budget has a degree of flex within it. It is not as tightly restricted as the core international development budgets, so on the humanitarian side we are able to exercise our judgment on how to deploy limited funds to best possible effect.

Chi Onwurah: The earthquakes in Syria and Turkey have shocked and appalled us all. For the Turkish and Syrian communities in Newcastle, that horror is particularly close. They want to know why so many died, why it was so deadly and what they can do to help. Can the Minister give us his understanding of why so many relatively new buildings collapsed? Will he also look at the issue of cross-border remittances, so that the proceeds of the extensive fundraising that diaspora communities are undertaking can be transferred as effectively, easily and quickly as possible?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her comments, in particular about the support her constituents in Newcastle have been giving. She asks me specifically what people can do to help. I think I have made clear that the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal is the right way for our constituents to assist. She asks me why so many have died and why so many buildings collapsed. That is primarily a matter for the Turkish authorities to address. It is clear from what the press in Turkey are saying that that is a point people in Turkey are themselves pursuing vigorously. On cross-border remittances, I will have a look at that and write to her. She is quite right that ease of remittance is extremely important. It is something we try to facilitate in many parts of the world and I will look to see whether we can do any more in that respect.

Alex Davies-Jones: All our thoughts are with those impacted by the horrendous earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. I commend all the brilliant community groups across the UK who are doing incredible fundraising work. I am due to attend one this weekend in Treforest in my constituency. It is currently estimated that 24,000 women are due to give birth in Turkey in the areas affected by the earthquake. There is very little specialised  maternal and gynaecological support to help those women give birth safely. What more can the UK Government do to support those women with specific healthcare needs to help them give birth in a safe environment?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I hope she will pass on my thanks to the community groups she is seeing this weekend. On the 24,000 women in jeopardy in the way she describes, we have seen vividly on our television screens exactly how that can impact people who are caught under the rubble in awful circumstances. Our great intent has been to ensure that not only tents and thermal blankets get through, but hygiene kits, water and sanitation so that basic healthcare is restored. All those things will play a part in helping to address the problem she rightly brings before the House.

Allan Dorans: I thank the Minister for his statement. As tragically demonstrated, earthquakes are hugely unpredictable. What preparation and contingency planning are the United Kingdom Government making for future earthquakes in that region?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government consider all these matters in terms of humanitarian need and resilience not just in this region and with earthquakes but in many regions of the world facing many other challenges, most of which, but not all, result substantially from climate change. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that in all these matters of preparation, we are considering them every day and every week.

Point of Order

Anthony Mangnall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the business and the 10-minute rule Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). During Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that Shell had not paid any taxes through the Government’s oil and gas levy. A simple Google can correct that fact, but unfortunately we do not necessarily know what the mechanism is to bring the Leader of the Opposition back to the Dispatch Box to show that the oil and gas levy is working, and that Shell paid record levels this year and is set to pay more next year. How can we clarify that?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am assuming he has informed the Leader of the Opposition of his intention to raise it. However, he will know that it is not for the Chair to verify the accuracy or otherwise of comments made by hon. and right hon. Members. That is a matter for Members themselves. If a mistake has been made, the record can be corrected, but in the meantime the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, so I think we will leave it at that.

Bills Presented

Air Pollution (Local Authority Audits) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Christine Jardine and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to make provision for local authorities to conduct annual audits of air pollution in their area and associated emissions by public and private entities; to require those local authorities to prepare reports on those audits; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on those audit reports; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 257).

National Insurance (Voluntary Class 2 and 3 Contributions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of extending to 5 April 2025 the period for which voluntary Class 2 and 3 National Insurance contributions may be paid in respect of one or more of the tax years 2006-07 to 2016-17; to require the Secretary of State to publish certain information about the performance of the Future Pension Centre in providing advice about voluntary Class 2 and 3 contributions in relation to the state pension; to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for increasing public awareness of voluntary Class 2 and 3 contributions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 259).

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (Status) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dame Maria Miller, supported by Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Chris Elmore, Steve Brine, Julie Elliott, Harriett Baldwin, Bob Blackman, Layla Moran, Taiwo Owatemi, Sir James Duddridge and Dr Lisa Cameron, presented a Bill to provide for corporate status of and for certain privileges and immunities to be accorded to the international inter-parliamentary organisation of national and sub-national legislatures of Commonwealth countries known as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to its Secretary-General; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 260).

Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bob Blackman, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Nickie Aiken and Sarah Champion, presented a Bill to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961 to increase the maximum term of the lease that may be granted to the Zoological Society of London in respect of land in Regent’s Park; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 261).

Sexual Offences (Prohibition of Name Change)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.23)

Mark Fletcher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit a person subject to notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from changing their name; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is one of several steps that need to be  taken to fix safeguarding in this country, and to ensure that those who have committed some of the most heinous crimes—including rape, assault by penetration, indecent photographs of children offences, and sexual communications with a child—are not able to use a loophole to change their names to escape scrutiny and the authorities, and, in some cases, end up working with children and vulnerable people.
As is so often the case, my attention was brought to this situation by a constituent’s casework. They know who they are, and I will say no more, other than that they are very brave and what they have been through is horrific and unimaginable for most of us. However, the person who is responsible for their pain is in prison and wishes to change his name. I could not believe that this was possible, but it turned out to be the tip of the iceberg. Further research led me to the excellent work on the issue done by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and, in turn, to the Safeguarding Alliance’s superb research, and also the advocacy of my right hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). I pay tribute to their work, and from here on in steal many of their arguments and research.
The crux of the situation is this: registered sex offenders are able to change their names by deed poll, both enrolled and unenrolled, allowing them to go under the radar of the authorities and putting society’s most vulnerable at risk. Bizarrely, the onus for keeping details up to date on the sex offenders register lies with the offender, rather than the onus being on the police and other authorities to keep a close eye on the offender. It is illegal not to notify the authorities if you do change your name, and it can result in a sentence of five years in prison, but there is an automatic right for sex offenders out of prison to be able to change their names. It does not take a genius to realise that sex offenders are not the most trustworthy group. The Safeguarding Alliance’s report of April 2021 revealed that 16,000 offenders had breached notification requirements in the past five years and 905 had gone missing between 2017 and 2020, and this morning the BBC News website released new figures showing that 729 had gone missing between 2019 and 2021.
Rose West, Ben Lewis, Vanessa George and Ian Huntley all changed their names. The Bichard inquiry of 2004, set up in response to Mr Huntley’s horrific crimes, identified name-changing as a problem that needed solving, yet it remains unsolved. The same inquiry led to the establishment of the Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS, of which many of us will be aware. It is meant to provide an assurance for employers that an employee or volunteer is safe, but a sex offender can  now change their name and, with little difficulty, receive a passport or driving licence with their new name. At no point will they be asked whether they have a criminal background. In some cases, that can in turn lead to a DBS check under their new identity, and too often we find these people working in schools, care homes and elsewhere.
A few years ago there was a debate in the House on whether prisoners should have the right to vote, and it was agreed that they should have no such right. The Bill seeks to extend that principle, providing that someone who commits a heinous crime and is on the sex offenders register must in turn surrender their right to change their name while they remain on the register.
Last Monday, the Government announced several new and very welcome additional measures on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Two in particular are worth mentioning. Those who receive a sentence of 12 months or more for coercive and controlling behaviour will now be added to the sex offenders register, and the domestic violence disclosure scheme—or Clare’s law, as it is better known—will be put on a statutory footing. However, both measures are redundant if offenders can change their names and slip off the system. The same problem applies to the child sex offender disclosure scheme, or Sarah’s law, which, again, relies on accurate records. This is a major safeguarding breach at the heart of a system that is meant to protect us.
I think most people would be horrified to discover that this loophole exists. There are different approaches to fixing it, as I am sure we will discover during tomorrow’s Backbench Business debate initiated by the hon. Member for Rotherham; but that the current system is not fit for purpose and needs urgent change is beyond doubt. Too many of us have constituents who need us to act, and I hope that a solution will be central to the forthcoming Victims Bill.
Imagine being a young person and having the most horrific thing happen to you. Imagine that offender saying to you, “If you ever tell anybody, I will come for you.” Imagine living with that for decades. Imagine how the parents of that young person feel over decades. Imagine finding out that that offender may be changing their name and bringing back all those memories and that fear that they will come for you again. This Bill is about being on the side of victims and making sure that they do not have to go through that.
Again, I pay tribute to my very brave constituents, who I know are watching the debate, for bringing this mind-boggling matter to my attention; to the Safeguarding Alliance for all the work that it has done on this; and to all my colleagues who have supported the Bill, particularly the more than 50 Conservative Back Benchers who have supported it both publicly and privately. I cannot mention them all today. In particular, however, I draw the Government’s attention to the fact that two former Home Secretaries and a former Justice Secretary have supported the Bill, as does the former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Safeguarding is about ensuring that our most vulnerable are protected, and we must end the real, immediate and significant risk of harm that this loophole creates. We cannot wait for another inquiry to tell us what we already know: that the law, and the system as it stands, are not fit for purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mark Fletcher, Sarah Champion, Priti Patel, Alicia Kearns, Caroline Nokes, Paul Holmes, Mr William Wragg, Sir Chris Bryant, Sir Robert Buckland, Mr David Davis, Alex Davies-Jones and Sajid Javid present the Bill.
Mark Fletcher accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 258).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting—
(1) The Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Michael Gove relating to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] not later than 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and
(2) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Penny Mordaunt relating to Estimates (Liaison Committee Recommendation).—(Jacob Young.)

Rosie Winterton: Before we come to the motion relating to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords], I have a brief announcement to make. Under section 107(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by section 2 of the Wales Act 2017, it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales. The Clerk of the House has been informed today that Senedd Cymru has agreed a legislative consent motion for this Bill. The Senedd agrees that the provisions of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office. It has also been published online at the Bill’s web page on the parliamentary Bills website.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding that such provision could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] to provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying action that registered providers of social housing must take in relation to hazards affecting housing provided under a lease and providing for breach of such regulations to be a breach of a leasehold covenant.—(Jacob Young.)

Social Housing (Regulation)  Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
[Relevant documents: The First Report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, The Regulation of Social Housing, HC 18; and oral evidence taken before the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on 6 February 2023, on The Regulation of Social Housing: Follow-up, HC 1127.]

New Clause 1 - Social housing leases: remedying hazards

‘After section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 insert—
“Implied term as to remedying of hazards
10A Remedying of hazards occurring in dwellings let on relevant social housing leases
(1) This section applies to a lease of a dwelling if—
(a) the dwelling is in England,
(b) the lease is a relevant social housing lease, and
(c) section 9A—
(i) applies to the lease (see section 9B), or
(ii) would apply to the lease if the provision in section 9B(3) did not exist.
(2) There is implied in the lease a covenant by the lessor that the lessor will comply with all prescribed requirements that are applicable to that lease.
(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require the lessor under a lease to which this section applies to take action, in relation to prescribed hazards which affect or may affect the leased dwelling, within the period or periods specified in the regulations.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are enforceable against lessors only through actions for breach of the covenant that is implied by subsection (2).
(5) In any proceedings for a breach of the covenant that is implied by subsection (2), it is a defence for the lessor to prove that the lessor used all reasonable endeavours to avoid that breach.
(6) For the purposes of this section a lease is a “relevant social housing lease” at any time when—
(a) the lessor under the lease is a registered provider of social housing, and
(b) the dwelling leased under the lease—
(i) is social housing, but
(ii) is not low cost home ownership accommodation.
(7) In this section and section 10B—
“lease” , “lessor” and “lessee” have the same meanings as in section 9A (see section 9A(9));
“low cost home ownership accommodation” has the meaning given in section 70 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008;
“prescribed hazard” has the same meaning as in section 10 (see section 10(2) and (3));
“prescribed requirement” means a requirement prescribed in regulations under subsection (3);
“social housing” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (see sections 68 and 72 of that Act).
10B Regulations section 10A: supplementary provision
(1) Regulations under section 10A(3) may apply to—
(a) leases granted before the day when section (Social housing leases: remedying hazards) of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 came into force;
(b) prescribed hazards which began before that day;
(c) only some descriptions of prescribed hazards.
(2) Regulations under section 10A(3) may—
(a) specify a period that is not of a specific duration (for example a reasonable or appropriate period, including a period decided by the lessor or another person);
(b) specify two (or more) periods in relation to particular action.
(3) Regulations under section 10A(3) may (in particular)—
(a) require the lessor to take particular action, or action that is intended to produce a particular outcome, in relation to a prescribed hazard;
(b) require the lessor to take action in relation to a prescribed hazard that is not of itself intended to remedy the hazard, for example by requiring the lessor—
(i) to investigate whether or how a prescribed hazard is affecting the leased dwelling, or
(ii) to secure that the lessee and any other members of the lessee’s household are provided with alternative accommodation at no cost to them;
(c) require the lessor to take action in relation to a prescribed hazard only—
(i) in particular circumstances, or
(ii) if particular conditions are met;
(d) provide that the lessor is not required to take action in relation to a prescribed hazard—
(i) in particular circumstances, or
(ii) if particular conditions are met.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) provide for section 10A not to apply to particular descriptions of leases;
(b) make provision, in relation to the covenant that is implied by section 10A(2), which corresponds to any provision made by section 9A(4) to (8).
(5) A power to make regulations under section 10A or this section includes power to make—
(a) incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes.
(6) The power to make transitional or saving provision may (in particular) be used to make provision about situations where the covenant in section 10A(2)—
(a) begins to be implied in a lease after its grant because it becomes a relevant social housing lease;
(b) ceases to be implied in a lease because it ceases to be a relevant social housing lease (including provision to save the lessor’s liability for any breach of the covenant occurring before it ceases to be implied).
(7) Regulations under section 10A or this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 10A or this section may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”’
This new clause would enable registered providers of social housing to be required to deal with hazards affecting leased dwellings of which they are the landlord.—(Michael Gove.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Dehenna Davison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 1, after “Social housing leases:” insert “prescribing and”.
Amendment (b) to new clause 1, after “comply with all the prescribed requirements” insert
“under regulations made under this section and section 10B”.
Amendment (c) to new clause 1, after “regulations under subsection (3) insert “or section 10B”.
Amendment (d) to new clause 1, after “sections 68 and 72 of that Act).”, insert—
“(8) Any provision of a lease or of any agreement relating to a lease (whether made before or after the grant or creation of the lease) is void to the extent that it purports—
(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the lessor under the covenant implied by section 10A(2), or
(b) to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the lessee any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the lessee enforcing or relying upon those obligations.
(9) Where in any proceedings before a court it is alleged that a lessor is in breach of an obligation under the covenant implied by section 10A(2), the court may order specific performance of the obligation (regardless of any equitable rule restricting the scope of that remedy).
(10) Where a lease to which this section applies of a dwelling in England forms part only of a building, the implied covenant has effect as if the reference to the dwelling in subsection (1) included a reference to any common parts of the building in which the lessor has an estate or interest.”
Amendment (e) to new clause 1, leave out line 50.
Amendment (f) to new clause 1, leave out lines 79 to 81.
These amendments seek to strengthen Gov NC1 by clarifying the relevant prescribed requirements at 10A(2), making clear the extent of their application, inserting non-avoidance and non-penalisation provisions and detailing where courts may order specific performance of certain obligations.
Government new clause 2—Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members.
Government new clause 3—Action after inspection.
Government new clause 4—Secretary of State’s duty to give direction about providing information to tenants.
New clause 5—Persons engaged in the management of social housing to have relevant professional qualifications—
‘After section 217 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (accreditation), insert—
“217A Professional qualifications and other requirements
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide that a person may not engage in the management of social housing or in specified work in relation to the provision of social housing unless he or she—
(a) as appropriate professional qualifications, or
(b) satisfies specified requirements.
(2) Regulations specifying work for the purpose of subsection (1) may make provision by reference to—
(a) one or more specified activities, or
(b) the circumstances in which activities are carried out.
(3) Regulations made under this section may, in particular, require—
(a) the possession of a specified qualification or experience of a specified kind,
(b) participation in or completion of a specified programme or course of training, or
(c) compliance with a specified condition.
(4) Regulations may make provision for any of the following matters—
(a) the establishment and continuance of a regulatory body;
(b) the keeping of a register of qualified social housing practitioners;
(c) requirements relating to education and training before and after qualification;
(d) standards of conduct and performance;
(e) discipline and fitness to practise;
(f) removal or suspension from registration or the imposition of conditions on registration;
(g) investigation and enforcement by or on behalf of the regulatory body, and appeals against the decisions or actions of the regulatory body.”’
This new clause would require managers of social housing to have appropriate qualifications and expertise.
New clause 6—Application of Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers—
‘Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must by order designate registered providers of social housing as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
This new clause would bring registered providers of social housing within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
New clause 7—Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety—
‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 92K insert—
“92KA A Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(1) Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure tenancy or assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and
(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.
(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—
(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy; and
(b) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—
(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;
(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;
(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—
(a) the registered provider,
(b) the tenant, or
(c) any member of the tenant’s household.
(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.”’
This new clause would require the regulator to ensure that tenants whose safety is threatened are granted alternative accommodation by their housing provider on equivalent terms to their existing   tenancy. It also requires the regulator to ensure that a provider which is unable to provide appropriate alternative accommodation co-operates with other providers to do so.
New clause 8—Regulator duties relating to supported exempt and temporary accommodation—
‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 192 (Overview), in paragraph (a), after “social housing” insert “, supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation”.
(3) In section 193 (Standards relating to consumer matters), in paragraph (a), after “social housing” insert “, supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation”.
(4) After section 195 (Code of practice) insert—
“195A Regulation of codes of guidance issued by the Secretary of State
The regulator shall have a duty to inspect local housing authorities as to their compliance with any code of guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the Housing Act 1996”’.
This new clause would enable the regulator to set standards for the provision of supported and temporary accommodation, make the regulator responsible for enforcing any Code of Guidance issued by the Secretary of State relating to local authorities’ duty to provide temporary accommodation, and give the regulator the ability to inspect local authorities for compliance.
New clause 9—Review of impact of this Act—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, carry out a review of the impact of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must make an assessment as to whether the Act has improved the safety and quality of social housing both in its own terms, and in comparison to the safety and quality of housing in the private rented sector.’
This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review of the impact of this Act.
Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(da) to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless in relation to the provision of social housing.”’
This amendment would add to the regulator’s remit an additional objective of safeguarding and promoting the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless in the context of the provision of social housing.
Amendment 42, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(2) In section 92K of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (fundamental objectives), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) In undertaking its objective under subsection (2)(b) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State at least every three years on whether the provision of social housing in England and Wales is sufficient to meet reasonable demands, and must make recommendations to the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the provision of social housing is so sufficient.
(3B) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any reports prepared by virtue of subsection (3A).
(3C) In undertaking its objective under subsection (3)(a) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State on the progress of the removal of unsafe cladding and the remediation of other fire safety defects in social housing, and may make recommendations to the Secretary of State on further action required.”’
This amendment would include in the regulator’s objective a requirement to report to the Government on the removal of cladding. It would also require the regulator to report to the Government on the adequacy of the stock of social housing, and lay a copy of any such report before Parliament.
Amendment 37, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) The Panel may provide information and advice to the Secretary of State about, or on matters connected with, the regulator’s functions and wider issues affecting the regulation of social housing (whether or not it is requested to do so by either the regulator or the Secretary of State).”
This amendment would enable the Panel to provide information and advice and to proactively raise issues affecting social housing regulation more generally directly to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 38, page 1, line 19, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (2) and (2A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 37.
Amendment 36, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(8) The Panel must be chaired by a tenant of social housing.
(9) The Chair is responsible for setting Panel meeting agendas.
(10) The majority of persons appointed to the Panel must be tenants of social housing.”
This amendment would ensure that tenant representation on the advisory panel is mandatory and that tenants are able to influence effectively what information and advice is presented to the regulator in respect of issues affecting social housing regulation.
Government amendments 4 to 10.
Amendment 39, page 17, line 16, leave out clause 21.
Government amendments 44 to 47, 11 and 12.
Amendment 40, in clause 28, page 23, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—
“(a) the inspection of every registered provider within four years of the commencement of this Act,
(b) the inspection of every registered provider at intervals of no longer than four years thereafter, and”.
This amendment would ensure that the regulator is required to carry out regular inspections of every registered provider.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 28, line 39, leave out “24” and insert “48”.
This amendment is intended to probe why an authorised person must only give 24 hours’ notice to tenants under this section, whereas providers are given 48 hours’ notice.
Government amendments 13, 2, 15 to 34, 14, 35, 1 and 3.

Dehenna Davison: I am proud to be here today opening the Report stage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. The Bill has been long awaited, but I hope we can all agree that the time we have taken to engage with tenants and stakeholders has helped us to ensure that the Bill is as robust as possible. I am grateful that Grenfell United, Shelter and others are able to join us today as the Bill reaches its Report stage. I must pay tribute to them for their steadfast campaigning on this crucial legislation. I am also grateful to Members from across the House for the incredibly constructive way in which they have approached this legislation. Thanks to the strength and breadth of engagement, we have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses to reinforce the Bill even further, and I will begin with new clause 1, on Awaab’s law.

Chris Clarkson: As one of Rochdale borough’s two MPs, I thank the Minister’s Department for the speedy and sensitive way it has dealt with this, and I am sure that that would be echoed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who sadly cannot be here for this debate. Can I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that once this legislation is  passed, social housing tenants can have confidence that the homes they are provided with are fit for habitation in a way that simply has not been the case up to now?

Dehenna Davison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for his contribution today but for the way in which he engaged with us following this incredibly tragic case. This legislation is designed specifically to ensure that terrible cases like that faced not only by Awaab but by the Grenfell United community do not happen again, and that tenants have the protection and the respect they deserve from social housing providers.
I know I am not alone in saying that I was deeply shocked by the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. The death of a child is always heartbreaking, and its having been entirely preventable makes it even more devastating. My thoughts remain with Awaab’s family in the difficult time that they have been going through. This terrible case has thrown into sharp relief the need for this Government to continue steadfastly in their mission to drive up the quality of this country’s social housing and, crucially, to rebalance the relationship between tenants and landlords. Within the Government we are well aware that, unfortunately, damp and mould are not the only hazards that can pose a threat to social residents’ health. For example, excessive cold and falls caused by disrepair in homes are among the top five hazards found in homes in England.
That is why the Secretary of State has tabled the Government new clause for Awaab’s law, which not only addresses the concerns underpinning the Awaab’s law proposals but goes further by enabling the Government to introduce new requirements on landlords to act on a broader range of hazards. We will take a power for the Secretary of State to set out in secondary legislation requirements for landlords to rectify hazards or rehouse residents within a certain time. Our new clause will empower tenants to challenge their landlords for inaction. It inserts an implied covenant into tenancy agreements that landlords will comply with the requirements prescribed in regulations. This will empower landlords to deal with hazards such as damp and mould in a timely fashion, knowing that if they fail to do so they can face a legal challenge from residents.
It is crucial that any new measures to address the issues of damp, mould and other hazards putting residents’ health at risk are proportionate and evidence-based and deliver the right outcomes for social residents in the long term. That is why we intend to consult on these new requirements, including time limits, within six months of Royal Assent and to lay the secondary legislation as soon as possible thereafter.
We are also tabling new clause 4 and Government amendments 1 and 11 to 14, which will ensure that the Regulator of Social Housing sets standards for landlords and provides tenants with information about how to make complaints and about their rights as tenants. To demonstrate our commitment to this, we have included a duty for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to this effect within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
I turn now to the important matter of professional standards in the sector. Grenfell United has long campaigned for mandatory qualifications to be introduced  in the sector to ensure that professional standards are consistently high across the sector and to bring social housing into line with other frontline services such as social work, teaching and health and social care. At the earlier stages of the Bill I made it clear that we had to proceed cautiously on mandatory qualifications, as there was an identified risk that requirements could lead to housing associations being reclassified by the Office for National Statistics to the public sector, which in turn would hamper their ability to invest in improving the quality of existing homes and in building new stock.
However, I have made it clear in this process that we are here to listen and take on board comments from stakeholders and Members from across the House. We took heed of the arguments made by Grenfell United and Shelter and by those who spoke so passionately in both Houses on this matter. The tragic death of Awaab Ishak also underlined how vital it is that we use every lever at our disposal to deliver the consistently high level of professional standards that tenants deserve. Since the Commons Committee stage, we have worked incredibly hard to find a solution. I am grateful to Grenfell United and Shelter for their ongoing work with us on this issue and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and my noble Friend Baroness Sanderson. I am proud to stand here today having tabled Government amendments 44 to 47 to deliver qualification requirements to improve the experience of social housing tenants.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for the consultative way in which she has guided the Bill through the House. Having gone through the Lords and now reached Report, the Government have tabled four new clauses and a substantial number of amendments. What consideration is she giving to the consultation that will be needed on those new clauses with the organisations involved, to make sure we get the regulations right when she brings forward the secondary legislation?

Dehenna Davison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his intervention but for the constructiveness and diligence with which he conducted himself in Committee, which we can all agree was done with the best of intentions to get the best for social housing tenants. He is right that we need to make sure the process is done correctly, which is why we will be working with the sector and key stakeholders to get this absolutely right, while committing to ensuring that professional qualifications are required for the executives and managers of social housing providers to make sure that tenants get the experience they deserve.
The qualification requirements will be delivered through the competence and conduct standards, for which we have already made provision in the Bill. The new provision will require housing managers and senior housing executives to have, or to be working towards, a housing management qualification at levels 4 and 5 respectively. Qualifications must be independently regulated by Ofqual or, in the case of senior housing executives, can be a foundation degree. Relevant staff who are not already qualified will have to enrol on and complete the appropriate qualification within a specified timescale, which will be set following consultation.
We are setting qualification requirements for housing managers and executives because they are responsible for, and are best placed to drive, the delivery of high-quality professional services through their management of frontline housing officers, repairs and maintenance staff and customer service staff; through the day-to-day decisions they make about the delivery of services to tenants; and, crucially, through their ability to drive culture and change across their organisations. It was imperative that we found a way to introduce requirements that will not increase the risk of reclassification. By tightly defining the roles in scope and the qualifications that will be required, and by enabling staff to gain qualifications in post, we have been able to achieve that.
Importantly, the new requirement for managers and senior executives will work in tandem with the competence and conduct standards, which already require that the standards will have a broad application, requiring landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure all their staff involved in the provision of housing management services, including housing officers and repairs and maintenance staff, have the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours needed to deliver professional, high-quality services to tenants.
The combination of competence and conduct standards for all staff and qualification requirements for all housing managers and senior executives will drive change throughout organisations. Together, they will deliver the transformation of the sector’s culture, staff professionalism and service standards that we all want to see.
New clause 3 adds requirements relating to the production and publication of an inspector’s report following the completion of an inspection. Currently, following the completion of an inspection carried out under section 201 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, the inspector is required to produce a report and the regulator is required to share that report with the registered provider. The new clause provides that, instead, the inspector must produce a summary of findings, as well as a report, on any matters specified by the regulator. The regulator will then be required to share the summary and any report with the provider, and it may also publish all or part of these documents.
Crucially, new clause 3 gives the regulator the flexibility to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a full inspector’s report is necessary or whether a shorter summary of the inspector’s findings is sufficient. The changes also allow the regulator to specify matters for the inspector to report on, allowing it to use its expertise and understanding of a provider’s risks to determine the nature of inspections that should be carried out. The regulator continues to develop its approach to inspections and will work closely with the sector in this process.
New clause 2 and Government amendments 2 and 3 will give the ombudsman explicit statutory power to issue and publish guidance on good practice, alongside the power to order landlords to complete a self-assessment if the ombudsman has received a relevant complaint about the landlord. We believe these amendments are necessary in the light of the recent tragic case of Awaab Ishak. The housing ombudsman can play an important role in raising awareness of the key issues it sees within the complaints it receives, such as on damp and mould. This power will enable the ombudsman, following a complaint, to challenge social landlords to consider and improve their service to residents by ordering them to  complete a self-assessment against the good practice guidance. This provides greater weight to the good practice guidance and should prevent further issues from arising. It will also mean that a great number of issues should be resolved at an earlier stage.
Government amendments 4 to 10 and 15 to 34 concern housing moratorium procedures, as set out in the 2008 Act, and restrictions on insolvency procedures imposed by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The powers of the Regulator of Social Housing in the event of a provider experiencing financial difficulty offer important protections for the social housing sector and protect social housing tenants by helping to ensure they can remain in their home. The housing moratorium provides time for the regulator to work with a provider and secured creditors to produce the best outcome in such a scenario.
It is essential that the legislation works as effectively as possible, and that we use this opportunity to make some technical changes that will help to ensure this. Amendment 4 will ensure there is no gap between the occurrence of an insolvency-related event and the beginning of a moratorium so that a provider cannot dispose of land. Amendments 6 and 8 make it clear that the regulator can both extend the moratorium and impose a further moratorium where it has made inquiries but has been unable to locate any secured creditors of the registered provider.
Amendment 9 relates to the process by which proposals about the future management of a registered provider made during a moratorium are put in place. It clarifies how the process works in a scenario where the regulator is unable to locate any secured creditors to agree the proposals. Not every registered provider will have secured creditors and, as such, the amendments will ensure that legislation continues to work effectively and that processes are clear in those cases.
Amendments 15 to 34 concern the giving of notices. They contain provisions on the signature and content of notices, and they provide powers for the regulator to deal with notices that have not been validly signed. Amendment 35 is a technical amendment relating to data protection, and it introduces a provision that clarifies the relationship between data protection legislation and part 2 of the 2008 Act.
I hope hon. Members see the importance of all the Government amendments before the House today and will support them, because I firmly believe they will make the Bill even stronger to deliver the high standards that we are all looking for in social housing and that we know all tenants deserve.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Matthew Pennycook: I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name. I join the Minister in welcoming Grenfell United, Shelter and others to the Public Gallery.
There is a shared recognition across the House that the lives of far too many social housing tenants are blighted by poor conditions and that, although there are good social landlords, too many still routinely fail their tenants. That shared understanding has underpinned the consensus across both sides of the House that the Bill is both necessary and urgently required.
Since the moment the Bill was finally published in October 2022, the Opposition have been clear that we support it and that we wish to work constructively with the Government to see it make rapid progress. Yet at every stage, we have been at pains to convey our strong feeling that the Bill could be strengthened in a number of areas, and to urge Ministers to approach our suggested improvements with an open mind and in the constructive spirit in which they were offered. That was how we approached Committee, and it is why we worked with the Minister to secure the Bill’s speedy passage out of Committee.
We pressed a range of amendments in Committee, including on three key objectives: the need to expedite the professionalisation of the sector; the need to ensure that the Bill provides, in practice, for the Ofsted-style inspections regime to which the Government are ostensibly committed to introducing; and the need to further empower social tenants. I shall take each in turn.
On professionalisation, we welcome the concession made by the Government in the other place regarding professional training and qualifications, and the resulting addition of clause 21 to the Bill, but we pressed in Committee for that clause to be strengthened so that it not only provides the regulator with the ability to set standards on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the management of social housing, but includes requirements to ensure social housing managers have appropriate objective qualifications and expertise. Our reasoning was simple: as a result of the progressive residualisation of social housing over the past 40 years, it is now overwhelmingly let to those most in need and often least able to challenge poor conditions, not least because the chronic shortage of social housing in England leaves most with few, if any, options to move if they receive an unprofessional service from their landlord.
The circumstances leading up to the fire at Grenfell Tower in June 2017 and those surrounding the death of Awaab Ishak in December 2020, as well as countless other instances of negligence and neglect that will have gone unreported, make perfectly clear what can happen when staff do not listen to their tenants, do not treat them with respect, do not respond to their concerns with empathy and understanding, do not deal appropriately with their complaints, and in some instances actively discriminate against them. In our view, it is therefore essential that those managing the homes of social tenants are properly qualified to do so; that they have undergone the necessary training to ensure that they are treating tenants fairly and providing them with the necessary support; and that they undergo continuous professional development—just as we expect those in other key frontline services to do.
In Committee, the Minister stressed the Government’s concern that giving the Secretary of State the power to stipulate mandatory qualifications for social housing managers through regulation could risk the Office for National Statistics reclassifying housing associations to the public sector. We never dismissed such a risk out of hand, but neither were we convinced it was an impediment to strengthening clause 21, not least because we have never seen any evidence that suggests that mandating qualifications would automatically trigger a reclassification. To underscore how strongly we felt about using the Bill to  expedite the professionalisation of the sector, we tabled new clause 5. However, true to the commitment that the Minister gave in Committee to explore in good faith whether there was scope to go further without risking reclassification, the Government tabled amendment 47 and others just before the deadline on Friday afternoon.
The Minister mentioned frontline social housing managers, unless I am mistaken. While we would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the definition of “relevant manager” in that amendment and others encompasses all those in frontline roles involving extensive resident engagement, such as neighbourhood housing, customer service and antisocial behaviour managers, and also a commitment that the Government will set out a timeline for implementation in the not too distant future and that the new burdens doctrine will apply in relation to local authorities, we are satisfied that amendment 47 and others address the concerns we raised in Committee. On that basis, we are happy to support them. I take the opportunity to once again praise Grenfell United and Shelter for helping to convince the Government to make the concession.
Turning to the issue of inspections, we welcomed the concession made by the Government in the other place to impose a duty on the regulator to publish, and take appropriate steps to implement, a plan for regular inspections. I once again commend the efforts of Lord Best and Grenfell United in achieving that outcome. However, while recognising the need for the regulator to have a significant degree of discretion in formulating that inspections plan, we pressed in Committee for clause 29—which was then clause 28—to be made more prescriptive in two important respects. First, we believe it is essential that the Bill makes it clear that all registered providers, large or small, will be subject to inspections by the regulator. Secondly, we believe it is essential that the Bill ensures that every registered provider will be subject to routine inspections.
In resisting our amendment in Committee, the Minister made two principal arguments: first, that it would be unreasonable to bind the regulator’s hands by specifying that the inspections plan must include those two minimum requirements; and, secondly, that basing the system of inspections on a provider risk profile determined principally by size will ensure those landlords at greatest risk of failing tenants are accorded greater oversight. In our view, both those arguments are flawed.
On the argument that we should not bind the regulator’s hands, the Minister must surely appreciate that the Government cannot on the one hand commit to introducing an Ofsted-style inspections regime, and then resist specifying any minimum expectations as to how that regime should operate, however reasonable they might be. If the Government’s intention were to give the regulator unlimited operational flexibility in relation to the inspections plan, they should have been clear about that fact, rather than promising tenants that they would introduce an Ofsted-style regime, with the obvious connotations that that has in terms of universal coverage and a defined regularity of inspection.
On the argument that a risk profile based on a size threshold will best ensure tenants are protected, the Government have not provided any evidence as to why they believe that landlords with a stock of 1,000 homes or more are at the greatest risk of failing in terms of standards. We appreciate entirely the case for prioritising  larger landlords with a stock of over 1,000 units, given that that will cover the vast majority of social homes in England, but there is no evidence to suggest that landlords with fewer than 1,000 homes are less likely to fail their tenants; indeed there are cases listed right now on gov.uk of such smaller landlords having been served regulatory notices for breaches. Nor can we understand, given that these smaller landlords are responsible for just 4% of England’s social housing stock, what the Government believe are the benefits of allowing them to escape regular inspection, given that doing so is unlikely to significantly reduce the burden on the regulator and carries the obvious risk that one or more smaller providers will fail their tenants as a result of the lack of oversight.
We agree with the Government that the regulator should retain a high degree of operational independence and flexibility in formulating and implementing the inspections plan now required by clause 28, but we believe the Government are making a mistake in refusing to mandate the two basic requirements that we have proposed: namely, an inspection for all landlords irrespective of size at least once every four years.
To ensure that every social landlord must be inspected within four years of the commencement of the Act, and then inspected by the regulator at intervals of no longer than four years thereafter, we have tabled amendment 40. I commend it to the House as the best possible means of giving tenants real confidence in the new inspections regime. If the Government are intent on resisting it today, the Minister could, at the very minimum, state clearly from the Dispatch Box that the Government will not rule out an inspection plan that includes smaller landlords and will listen to the arguments for including them carefully in the forthcoming consultation process.
Finally, on tenant empowerment, we firmly believe that the empowerment of social tenants should be at the heart of the Bill, and we believe that a key test of its overall robustness is whether it ultimately includes mechanisms that will enable tenants to influence in practice the regulator’s approach to regulating standards, to shape any future changes to regulatory standards and codes of practice, and to proactively raise wider issues affecting social housing regulation and policy not just with the regulator but with Ministers.
The Government ostensibly agree that tenants are at the heart of the Bill, and Ministers have repeatedly assured us that one of its primary objectives, largely owing to the fact that the warnings of Grenfell Tower tenants were repeatedly ignored before the fire, is both to give social housing tenants a voice and to ensure that voice is listened to. Yet when it comes to providing ways in which tenant representatives can exert a measure of influence over the work of the regulator, shape the future direction of the regulatory arrangements that the Bill establishes, and proactively influence national regulation and policy so as to shape the services that tenants receive from their landlords, the Bill lacks all ambition. We believe this is a serious omission.
Since the abolition of National Tenant Voice in 2010, we have not had an independent body that is truly representative of tenants across the country and allows them to speak for themselves on a more equal footing   with other interests. The Bill cannot be the vehicle for establishing such a body, but it could do much more to ensure that tenants are influencing the making of national regulation and policy. In Committee, the Minister resisted several amendments we proposed for empowering tenants, on the basis that the social housing quality resident panel provided sufficient opportunity for tenants to share their views with Government, that measures to ensure sufficient tenant representation and influence on the advisory panel were too prescriptive, and that there was no need to bring providers of social housing within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because the new access to information scheme enabled by clause 22 provides for the same right of access.
We were not convinced by these arguments, and we remain concerned that the Bill, as drafted, will not meaningfully empower tenants. We have therefore tabled amendments 36 and 37 and new clause 6, which taken together would ensure that tenants are adequately represented on the advisory panel established by clause 2 and able to influence how it operates; that the panel would have the ability to provide information and advice directly to the Secretary of State in circumstances in which it feels that is necessary; and that tenants and others have the right to access information held by providers on a range of key issues of concern, including fire safety and health hazards, beyond what they might secure as a result of any information and transparency scheme that might be—I stress the word “might”—established under clause 22. I commend them to the House.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On new clause 6, he knows that I have an interest in freedom of information, and I introduced a private Member’s Bill to do just this. The Freedom of Information Act applies to housing associations in Scotland, the Information Commissioner supports that, and there were endless examples in what the Campaign for Freedom of Information gave us in preparation for this debate of housing associations just refusing or ignoring requests from tenants about fire safety, damp and mould and other issues. Why should they be treated differently from council tenants, and why will the Government not adopt the FIA, which is designed exactly for this purpose, rather than use their own scheme, which would do a pale reflection of that in trying to enable tenants can find out basic information about their own safety?

Matthew Pennycook: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I could not have put it better. We are seriously concerned that clause 22 does not have the same effect as bringing providers within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. We think that tenants, and tenant representatives and those acting on their behalf, should be able to enjoy those rights, so that they can get information of the kind that, as he rightly says, providers regularly refuse to give to tenants.
Before turning to the Government amendments that have been tabled since the Bill left Committee, I wish to speak briefly to new clauses 7 and 8, which stand respectively in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I turn first to new clause 7, or “Georgia’s law”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood  has named it, in reference to a constituent of hers who was forced into temporary accommodation for an extended period as a result of her teenage son being threatened by gang members at their family home.
In our view, new clause 7 is a sensible and proportionate amendment that would make a real difference to a small but significant minority of tenants in England who find themselves in the exceptional circumstance—I must stress that fact—of a police referral as a result of being subject to the threat of serious violence. Its effect—the protection of existing tenancy rights in the case of a forced move linked to a threat of violence and greater co-operation between registered providers to rehouse those affected in a social home—is clearly not unduly onerous, and the Government’s argument that such a measure would cause insurmountable problems with local authority allocations policies is entirely unconvincing.
The Minister gave a guarantee in Committee that the Government would work with my hon. Friend
“to see what more can be done in this area to prevent any more cases like that of Georgia and her boys emerging.”––[Official Report, Social Housing (Regulation) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 66.]
It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the Government have not been willing to bring forward an amendment of their own to ensure that others do not have to experience what my hon. Friend’s constituents were forced to go through. As such, if my hon. Friend pushes her new clause 7 to a vote, we will of course support it.
We also support new clause 8, because while we recognise that the Government are taking steps to address the issue of unscrupulous providers of supported accommodation by means of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), we are in full agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that the regulator should have the ability to inspect temporary accommodation. There is statutory guidance designed to ensure that existing minimum standards are met for all temporary accommodation, but we know that in practice bed and breakfasts, hotels and shared houses used by local authorities across the country to house homeless families are frequently substandard and often hazardous, because that guidance is rarely adhered to.
The truth is that with almost 100,000 households, and now more than 125,000 children, living in temporary accommodation, according to the Department’s own figures, local authorities have little leverage when it comes to deciding what standards they are willing to accept. A huge amount needs to be done to decrease the demand for temporary accommodation across the country, most of which is well outside of the scope of this Bill. But in the short term, stronger regulation and inspections could make a real difference, and in the most extreme cases they could save lives. On that basis, we support new clause 8.
Finally, I turn to the Government amendments that have been tabled in recent weeks. The bulk of them are uncontroversial and largely technical, and we support their incorporation into the Bill. I do, however, wish to touch upon Government new clause 1. Awaab Ishak’s untimely death from prolonged exposure to mould in the house his parents rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing should never have occurred and the fact that it  did, frankly, shames our country. The coroner was right to call it a “defining moment”, but it falls to this House to ensure that it truly is. It is therefore essential that we legislate to compel landlords to act quickly to remedy hazards of the kind that ultimately killed Awaab.
The regulator’s initial findings on damp and mould in social housing, published on 2 February, estimated that up to 160,000 social homes have notable problems with it, and a further 8,000 have hazards so severe that they pose a serious and immediate risk to health. Given the scale of the problem, landlords who fail to proactively review the homes and buildings they manage or lease for hazards, who deal with tenant complaints relating to such hazards ineffectively, or who blame damp and mould on lifestyle choices and myriad other factors, rather than taking responsibility, cannot be tolerated.
Government new clause 1 is a laudable effort at amending the Bill to ensure that social housing providers are forced to investigate and deal promptly with hazards that are a danger to the health of tenants. As the Minister said, it would allow the Secretary of State, by regulation, to set timescales to which social landlords must adhere in respect of remedying hazards or be in breach of a tenancy agreement, as well as specify what kinds of action must be taken. Enforcement will, of course, depend on access to legal representation, and in many cases legal aid, Government new clause 1 nevertheless provides an enforceable right that enhances the provisions contained in the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). We commend the Government for tabling the new clause and we support it in principle.
However, we are convinced that Government new clause 1 could be strengthened in several important respects, and to that end we have tabled amendments (a) to (f). Taken together, they would set out on the face of the Bill the location of the relevant prescribed requirements at proposed new section 10A(2); make clear the extent of their application; detail the circumstances in which any provision of a lease or any agreement relating to a lease is void; and clarify where courts may order specific performance of certain obligations. We believe those changes would improve the clarity and functionality of Government new clause 1 and thereby make it stronger, and we hope the Government will give serious consideration to accepting them.
To conclude, this is without question an important and urgently needed piece of legislation, and we are extremely pleased it will complete its passage today. Everyone has a basic right to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home, and it is our sincere hope that by overhauling the regulation of social housing by means of this Bill, we will better protect the health, safety and wellbeing of social tenants across the country. We welcome the numerous concessions that the Government have made throughout the passage of the Bill, but we believe it is not yet the most robust piece of legislation that this House can possibly deliver, the achievement of which has been our objective from the outset. We will shortly have the opportunity to amend it further so that it is, and I urge the House to come together to that end.

David Simmonds: May I start by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests  and, in particular, my role as a vice-president of the Local Government Association? That is an important starting point for why I so strongly welcome this Bill and commend the Government team, especially for new clauses 1 and 2, which are going to be the main focus of my contribution this afternoon.
It was immensely useful, and terrifying, having served as a London local authority councillor and as an office holder in the LGA, to see the things that we learnt about the regulation of our housing market following the Grenfell disaster. Local authorities across the country will welcome the fact that this Bill begins to bring a degree of definition to the situations where regulation that perhaps in the past had been vague could apply, and a greater degree of rigour, which enables a greater degree of accountability in respect of landlords who may be falling short in their responsibilities.
I wish to flag up the fact that some issues remain to be addressed, because although the model of Ofsted as a regulatory framework is a good one, the weakness of Ofsted is that it focuses its inspections through the role of the local authority and the local authority’s powers in a diverse and complex education market are limited, just as they are in the context of a very diverse and complex housing market. I would simply say that, following the situation at Grenfell where large numbers of landlords suddenly realised that they would be required to address quite serious safety issues, we saw a number of examples around the country where private landlords with substantial blocks that were entirely occupied by tenants on social leases through the local authority essentially put those blocks into liquidation and walked away. Therefore, there was a need for a local authority in those kinds of situations to step in. How we deal with perhaps sharp business practices by landlords, who may seek, under a single brand, to register large numbers of individual properties or developments separately to try to evade—at least to some degree—the scope of regulation will be an ongoing challenge, and one that we already face in the buy-to-let market.
The Bill comes at a very helpful time given the rising diversity of different types of social tenure. I am referring in particular to the proliferation of different types of new housing associations, the development of local authority housing companies coming to this market, as well as the traditional housing revenue account social housing, which has been the bedrock of social tenancies for such a long time.
I wish to share with the House an example from my constituency, which demonstrates why those elements of new clause 1 about the remedying of hazards and of new clause 2 about strengthening the powers of Government to issue guidance to providers can potentially make such a significant difference. I pay tribute to my constituent, Suzy Killip, a resident of Eastcote, who has worked extremely hard on behalf of neighbours, most of whom are social tenants, although not all, in a development that is managed by A2Dominion, a large housing association. My constituents have described their frustration at finding that complaints about substantial matters—including those relating to safety, the development of damp, the inappropriate or improper installation of equipment, for example ventilation in homes, the inadequate   installation of safety measures that were part of the planning consent on the development—are simply ignored. They feel this enormous sense of frustration that, under the current system where they, as residents of properties, are unable to bring these matters effectively to the attention of the landlord and get them remedied, they simply do not know where to turn. As a Member of Parliament representing them, I have experienced the same challenges when my letters have gone unanswered and ignored. I know that many of us in this House will have had similar issues relating to developments brought to our attention in our constituency surgeries.
It is especially clear when some of the housing associations, some of the landlords, have close relationships with developers. There is often an incentive on the part of the management company not to address issues, particularly those that arise with new builds, because they are concerned about the impact that it may have on their longer-term relationship as a business with that organisation.
Suzy Killip describes to me a situation where there has been a long-standing failure to address issues of damp, including in properties occupied by children and young people, as well as by people suffering from health problems, for whom the damp contributes to the seriousness of their ill-health. There are also issues with drainage that are causing unpleasant smells and the risk of foul water coming back into people’s homes. Then there is the community centre that was much praised as the flagship of the development, which is still not in use 13 years after Hillingdon Council granted consent on what was a former Ministry of Defence site for an intended model development. That is as a result of a landlord who is simply not willing to engage with the people who are stakeholders and who therefore needs to be held to account by strengthened guidance.
We also see—I know that this is very common in planning departments in London local authorities—a greater enthusiasm for the “safer by design” theory. This is the idea that, by building in effective security measures into the structure of developments, we can reduce the impact of crime and antisocial behaviour. We have already heard Members talking about the impact that it may have on people needing to move home because of the risks that they experience. For those facing a situation where a landlord should have included those safer by design elements—perhaps they have been funded to, or have been granted planning consent on condition that those elements were included in the property but have not been—we need to ensure that there is a greater degree of rigour. In my view, new clauses 1 and 2, particularly that point about guidance—the detail of that guidance will be important—offers us a serious opportunity to make progress on that.
Will the Minister give an assurance on the issue of the brands of landlord who separately register sites, including quite large sites, under separate ownership? That is something that we see across all types of different businesses, it is not an uncommon practice, and there are often perfectly legitimate and appropriate reasons for doing it. However, I can certainly see A2Dominion, which is a sole social housing provider and which gives rise to almost all the complaints that I receive about social housing in my constituency, beginning to pop up in other places. I want to be assured that, having implemented effective new guidance—codes that have  teeth and effective powers for Government—we will not then find that, somehow, the rogue landlords are slipping out around the corners. I know that Ministers have been enormously keen to address that, and my constituents would be especially grateful to receive such an assurance, as it is at the forefront of their concerns.
That said, this is an extremely welcome Bill. I understand that there is some debate to be had about amendments to and fro, but it moves us into a much stronger position. The inspection of local authorities envisaged in the Bill would bring a degree of focus and clarity to what their role is in respect of different types of housing tenure. From my experience as a councillor in a local authority, where we went through the process of acquiring properties with the intention of making them fit for purpose for social tenancies, I can certainly say that all sorts of issues will often emerge through that process. Historically, there has not been an effective framework against which to set a rigorous inspection or through which to seek effective redress where problems have arisen. So often in the past, it has simply been a matter of opinion rather than something that can be found in guidance or clearly in legislation.
For all those reasons, I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is now here, for the work that has been done on the Bill. It will be a big step forward in providing a much safer and more secure environment and the ability to remedy problems when they occur. Many tenants across the country would like to expect that as a right but sadly, in too many cases, it is still not provided by landlords, despite the fact that those landlords receive substantial amounts of money for the homes that they provide.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Greater Manchester and, indeed, the rest of the country was shocked and horrified by the tragic death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale. His little lungs had been exposed to deadly damp and mould in the flat that he lived in with his family. They battled against it for a number of years, and even filed disrepair claims against the housing association. I think we are united in this House that, in one of the richest economies in the world, that should never have happened. I cannot imagine the pain and heartache that Awaab’s family must feel every single day. Today, we embark on the first step towards making sure that no family should ever have to experience what they have experienced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) cannot be with us in person owing to his ongoing treatment, but it should be noted that he has worked relentlessly with campaigners, with Government and with me and other colleagues across the House to ensure that the robust amendments needed to the legislation were made to honour Awaab’s name and ensure the health and safety of all social housing tenants.
I also thank the amazing organisations that have been the ultimate driving force of the Awaab’s law campaign: the Ishak family, their legal team, the Manchester Evening News and change.org for spearheading the campaign, and Shelter and Grenfell United for committing such energy, compassion and knowledge.
Very briefly, the campaign has four clear asks: to require social landlords to investigate the causes of damp and mould within 14 days of complaints being made, and report findings to tenants; to give social  landlords seven days to begin work to repair a property where a medical professional has flagged a risk to health; to ensure bids for new social housing properties are treated as a high priority if a medical professional has recommended a move; and to mandate social landlords to provide all tenants with the information that they need, in simple English and other languages, on their rights, on how to make a complaint and on what standards they can expect.
I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and their team for speaking directly with the Ishak family, with campaigners and with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and me, and for tabling new clauses 1 and 4, which help towards those key goals. Indeed, new clause 1 provides that the Secretary of State “must make regulations” that ensure that landlords have to remedy hazards such as mould and damp in a timely fashion. Although I appreciate that the Government want to consult on the final form of those regulations, I cannot stress enough that they must include provisions, as the Awaab’s law campaign set out, to set clear minimum safety standards, clear minimum timeframes for remedying any hazards, and an urgent priority move if the property is found to be unsafe. I am confident the Secretary of State will agree those are not unreasonable requests, and I hope that he will work hard throughout the consultation process to ensure that they are reflected in the final regulations.
I also support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), which seek to strengthen new clause 1 by protecting tenants from repercussions when calling on the new obligations, and by expanding court powers. I welcome, too, that Government new clause 4 gives direction that registered social housing providers must provide their tenants with information about their rights in making complaints. That is good, but it does not specifically commit to ensuring wider language accessibility. I trust that the Secretary of State and the Minister will address that point in the regulations.
In complement to the Awaab’s law campaign, I also support new clause 6, which embodies Greater Manchester Law Centre’s calls to make social housing providers subject to freedom of information requests. Without that change, social housing providers can and have refused to be transparent about important elements of their business practices, even though they are receiving public money in rent and support.
I also support new clause 5 and Government amendment 47 which detail that social housing managers must gain professional qualifications to protect residents and raise standards in the sector. That is a commitment that many have wanted to see since the Grenfell tragedy. I also support new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation. The new clause would enable the regulator to set standards for supported and temporary accommodation. I know that my hon. Friend will speak at length about that in due course, but it is an important change. I am a member of the all-party group, and research that the group commissioned, led by Justlife and the Shared Health Foundation, found widespread and horrific examples of the conditions in which temporary accommodation  residents were forced to live. In many cases, their accommodation was not fit for human habitation but they were frightened to say anything about it because of the risk of being made homeless. That is unacceptable.
I hope that the House will support all those amendments today, continuing the productive cross-party ethos that has been embodied in the passage of the Bill. It is important to state, however, that this legislation is one small element in a national moment of reckoning on the state of rented housing in this country. Citizens Advice suggests that more than half of private renters in England are struggling with damp, mould, excessive cold or a combination of those factors. Some 1.6 million of those affected are children. Private renters do not have access to the housing ombudsman for their complaints to be investigated independently, so millions of suffering families have no voice. They are trapped in homes that will ultimately put their lives at risk. I ask the Government to urgently introduce an equivalent Awaab’s law for the private rented sector alongside an urgent, state-funded, national housing mission to build new social homes and bring existing ones up to a decent standard.

Helen Hayes: I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. First, I want to put on the record my role as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
New clause 7 would protect the tenancy rights of social housing tenants who have to make an emergency move from their home because they or a member of their household are threatened with violence. It would be a small change in the law, but it would make a big difference. Losing the right to a secure, affordable home is a price that no one should have to pay for being a victim of crime. Yet that is what happens to far too many people who have to make an emergency move because the police say that it is not safe for them to stay in their home.
It is what happened to my constituent Georgia, an NHS employee, who had been very happy living in her housing association home with her children for nine years. One day, neighbours told Georgia that while she was at work, there had been loud banging on her door at home. She eventually coaxed her teenage son into telling her that he had been threatened by gang members. Georgia reported that to the police who told her that the matter was extremely serious, that they thought her son’s life was now at risk and that she needed to leave her home immediately. So Georgia approached her local council who provided temporary accommodation in another borough. At that point, Georgia effectively joined the bottom of the housing waiting list.
The current priority needs system does not automatically award high priority for being a victim of a threat of violence. In the context of an intense shortage of social housing, that meant that Georgia effectively faced a wait of many years to be offered a new home comparable to the one she had been forced to leave. In the meantime, after she had been in temporary accommodation for six months, her housing association began the process of formally ending her tenancy.
Georgia’s whole life and the lives of her children were turned upside down—just because her son had been threatened, through no fault of the family. In the end, following my intervention, Georgia was offered another  tenancy by her housing association, but not before she and her family had suffered devastating and long-lasting consequences as a result of the destabilisation of their lives.
New clause 7 would protect the tenancy rights of social tenants who face circumstances similar to Georgia’s by requiring their council or housing association to offer an equivalent tenancy in an area that is safe for them, as soon as one becomes available. It would also create a duty for social housing landlords to co-operate in the event that a tenant’s current landlord did not own homes in an area in which it was safe for the tenant to live.
Georgia’s law is supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. I am also grateful to MPs from the Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and Green parties who have shown their support for the change since I first introduced it under the ten-minute rule a year ago. I am grateful to the Minister for giving consideration to Georgia’s law in Committee, but I am deeply disappointed that the Government are refusing to support it today.
The Government’s main argument has been that Georgia’s law would interfere with the system of priority need and result in homes not being allocated to those in the greatest need, but that is based on a misunderstanding of how it would operate. The beneficiaries of Georgia’s law are already social housing tenants; they are not new tenants seeking to jump the housing queue. The homes that they have had to flee will be returned to their landlord to allocate to those in the greatest need on the housing waiting list.
Far from increasing the burden on the social housing system, Georgia’s law would prevent a whole cohort of people from spending long periods of time on the housing waiting list. Temporary accommodation is extremely expensive, so by ensuring that a group of people who are already social tenants can remain in social housing, Georgia’s law would also save public money. It would not be a radical change in the law, because the best social landlords are already modelling good practice in this area.
The chief executive of one large housing association recently contacted me proactively to support Georgia’s law in some detail. They said that
“we have seen first-hand the devastating impact that violence, in particular violence affecting young people, can have on the families and communities that we serve.
Our Empowering Futures Team works with partner organisations and the local community to help tackle the causes of violence that affect young people. However, as Georgia’s Law so importantly highlights, too many families are forced to flee their homes and local communities due to the threat of gang related violence...our internal transfer policy gives high priority to residents at risk of violence or abuse. Our local Housing Managers work with residents to support them through the transfer process and to ensure they receive the wrap around support they, and their families, require.
We work with other social landlords to seek reciprocal arrangements if we do not have a home in the area best suited to the resident. We also work in partnership with Safer London, whose Pan London Housing Reciprocal supports Londoners who are at risk of abuse or violence in their borough. Since 2017 the programme has facilitated 227 moves, with 517 children and adults having moved to safe, secure homes.
While we do as much as possible to ensure that any...resident forced to leave their home maintains their secure tenancy, we welcome the legislation you are proposing, which would implement  legal protections and more formal processes. This would ensure local authorities and social landlords work in collaboration to ensure no social housing resident is made homeless due to the risk of violence to them or their families.”
Georgia’s law simply proposes that that good practice should be required from all social landlords.
Serious violence, and the threat of serious violence, is a scourge on those communities, particularly when it affects young people. We have a responsibility in this place to do everything possible to prevent serious violence, to limit its harms and to support those who are affected to recover and get their lives back on track. We must act to limit the harm whenever we have the opportunity to do so. Voting for Georgia’s law today is one such opportunity. It would help families who have suffered the significant trauma of having to flee their home to resettle and move on with the safety and security of a social housing tenancy. It would enable our housing system to be part of a public health approach to tackling serious violence. It would make a real difference to families such as Georgia’s, and it would stop a terrible injustice, because no one should become homeless because they or their child are threatened with violence.
It is regrettable that the Government have chosen to not support Georgia’s law. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to think again today, and I commend new clause 7 to the House.

Helen Morgan: I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for mishearing the names earlier. I add my support for Georgia’s law, and draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have recently been appointed as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I rise to speak to new clause 9 and amendments 41, 42 and 43, which stand in my name. On Second Reading, I put on record that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the Bill. We will be supporting it, despite the fact that it has taken a long time to arrive, and we also broadly welcome the amendments tabled by the Government today. The amendments that I have tabled and will speak to today are intended to improve the legislation in the spirit of co-operation, and to ensure that there is fairness and accountability for people living in social housing and that, ultimately, everyone has a decent and safe home to return to at the end of each day.
Data from Shelter estimates that there are over 270,000 homeless people in the UK, and that a significant cause of those cases is a lack of social housing provision. Tragically, many people who become homeless find that there are no available social homes, and are often placed on long waiting lists for safe, permanent accommodation. Sometimes, they have nowhere to turn to other than charities, relatives or, indeed, their local Member of Parliament. Housing issues are one of the biggest and, frankly, most upsetting topics in my casework, and I know that my experience is not unusual among colleagues.
Amendment 41 would give the regulator the additional objective
“to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless”
due to a lack of social housing provision. On its own, that measure would not eradicate homelessness, but it would create an additional focus on finding a solution  to what is an unacceptable situation. This country has a chronic shortage of social housing, which is forcing families to live in dangerous and unsuitable conditions. Just this week, while I was out canvassing in my constituency, I chatted on the doorstep to a lady whose daughter uses a wheelchair, but they do not have any level access to their house. Her need has been assessed and she is in the gold band, at the top of the list for an alternative, but there is simply nothing available in North Shropshire at the moment that meets her family’s requirements. I have been dealing with a similar situation in relation to a constituent with breathing difficulties whose flat has just been treated for mould. Again, she has been given the right priority for a move with her family, but no suitable alternatives are available.
With nearly 1.2 million people on social housing waiting lists, it is not surprising that we all have examples in our casework such as those I have cited. I have spoken previously in this place about ensuring that when social housing is sold under the right to buy, the housing association or local authority receives 100% of the sale proceeds, in order to increase the likelihood of maintaining social housing stock at at least current levels. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of today’s Bill, but amendment 42 would require the regulator to provide a report to the Government about the adequacy of social housing stock, and to
“make recommendations to the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the provision of social housing is…sufficient.”
It would mean that this House has the opportunity to understand the state of our social housing stock, and to hold the Government of the day to account in ensuring that that stock is adequate.
Amendment 42 would also require the regulator to report to Government on progress with the removal of cladding and, again, make recommendations to ensure that progress is finally being made on that critical issue for people living in social housing. The tireless campaigning by so many after the Grenfell tragedy is the reason we are all here today debating this Bill. In my view, the Bill is a good opportunity to make sure that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that social housing is safe and that progress is properly scrutinised. I do not think that these measures are onerous in nature. They would provide valuable information to the Government, and I hope that the Minister will consider accepting amendment 42, which I intend to move formally later.
Moving on to amendment 43, I note that in its current form, the Bill presents a discrepancy in notice periods before the Regulator of Social Housing conducts a survey. The registered provider of the premises is granted 48 hours, while the tenant is given a notice period of only 24 hours. Amendment 43 would ensure that registered providers and occupiers of the premises were treated equally. A similar amendment tabled by colleagues in the other place had cross-party support. The amendment would help to ensure parity in the relationship between tenant and housing provider and would not place an additional onerous requirement on any party, so I urge the Minister to consider adopting it.
The Bill has been brought forward as a result of the terrible tragedies at Grenfell and, more recently, the harrowing death of Awaab Ishak. I welcome the Secretary of State’s intention to prevent a repeat of such incidents in the future. New clause 9 would allow the Government to ensure that the Bill achieves its objectives and improves  the safety and quality of social housing both in its own terms and in comparison with the safety and quality of housing in the private rented sector. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on that point. The new clause provides an opportunity to identify areas for improvement and unforeseen consequences of a change in the regulatory environment.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome this legislation. We fully support the objective of empowering those living in social housing to ensure that their homes are decent and safe, and we have put on record our view that we would have liked to have seen the Bill sooner. I urge the Government to adopt new clause 9 and amendments 41, 42 and 43. It is my view that they would improve the legislation in a manageable way and ensure that we improve not only the condition, but the availability of social housing and that we hold the Government of the day to account in making these improvements happen in reality.

Siobhain McDonagh: I rise to support new clause 8, which stands in my name and that of a number of other Members. The amendment is simple. It would make the regulator responsible for ensuring that local authorities enforce the homelessness code of guidance for temporary accommodation. It proposes that local authority housing departments are inspected in the same way as schools and children’s social services departments are inspected by Ofsted to ensure that the standard required by the guidance is being met and that families who have been accepted as homeless, but cannot be placed in a permanent home due to shortage, are provided with suitable temporary homes.
Temporary accommodation is defined formally as being provided to people who are either awaiting the outcome of a homelessness application under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 or waiting for an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. I find it hard to believe that any Member of this House who represents a constituency in London, the south-east, Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle is not aware of the sort of accommodation in which homeless families are often placed in an emergency. With access to permanent social housing and private rented properties at an all-time low, councils are under extreme pressure to find temporary accommodation. The best national estimates we have are that around 1.6 million households are waiting for social housing. Over the past 40 years, the overall social housing stock has declined by 1.4 million homes.
In my authority of Merton—not known for being under the extreme pressure of other London boroughs—last year the council only had 72 two-beds, 34 three-beds and two four-bedroom units to offer all year. At the same time, the number of families in temporary accommodation has risen by 41% since April, from 243 to 343 households. Merton is not alone or unusual. Most London boroughs count their homeless families in temporary accommodation in the thousands. Tonight, there will be 99,270 families, including 125,760 children, sleeping in temporary accommodation at a massive cost of £1.6 billion. That is an increase of 71% between 2012 and 2018, and a further increase of 41% between 2018 and 2022. Hard-pressed local authorities are seeking out ever more temporary accommodation that is uninspected and further away. The code of guidance  specifies the nature and location of temporary accommodation. We all know that those are laudable aims, but they are not being met.
Throughout my speech, I will provide examples of where the code of guidance has specific standards that are not being met in practice. I want to make it clear that I do not blame councils for the situation they find themselves in. They are in a bind: they do not have access to enough social housing units, their funding has been consistently cut, they do not have access to the number of environmental health officers they need, and they have a never-ending list of homeless families that they are desperate to house. This is a toxic mix with tragic consequences.
What bigger reason to act could there be than the number of children who have died in temporary accommodation? The all-party parliamentary group on temporary accommodation, using data from the national child mortality database, found that between 2019 and 2021 temporary accommodation was a contributing factor in the deaths of 34 children. Most of the children who died were under one. The most likely cause is a lack of safe sleeping provision, such as cots. In the fifth largest economy in the world, children are dying due to a lack of access to cots.
Other explanations were damp and mould growth or overcrowding. These conditions are prohibited under paragraph 17.17 of the homelessness code of guidance, which states:
“Attention should be paid to signs of damp or mould”.
How can signs of damp or mould be detected when the premises that homeless families are put in are not inspected?
Those tragic statistics are a conservative estimate. Of the child deaths reported between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022, there are at least 200 individual records where homelessness or living in temporary accommodation was recorded as present for the child, their mother or in their family life at some stage. These deaths were preventable, and they are unacceptable.
In fact, the Children’s Commissioner for England has described much of the temporary accommodation into which children are placed as
“simply inappropriate places for a child to be growing up.”
That is the reality for 125,760 children living in temporary accommodation. For example, one mother stated:
“I was discharged from hospital having given birth the day before into a hostel where I was the only woman. I was there with a new born baby, no cot, no nappies, and surrounded by men who had their own issues. It was very scary. I had left a relationship because of violence to keep my baby safe and I was in a really unsafe place.”
That is a clear breach of the code of guidance, which states in paragraph 17.6 that considerations should be given to the “risk of violence”.
Beyond the unacceptable conditions that we are housing children in, a general state of disrepair is widespread in temporary accommodation. For instance, one resident said:
“It’s worse [than] a nightmare. The house is almost 50 staircases without lifts, cockroaches, and mice. I fell severely when I was pregnant. Leaking, damp, roof touching our head, tiny rooms, we sleep on the ground.”
That is a breach of multiple parts of the code of guidance. Another resident said:
“We have had three fires since I’ve lived here. All related to dodgy wiring.”
Needless to say, electrical equipment that does not meet the requirements is prohibited under paragraph 17.14 of the guidance. The resident also says that they
“cannot get repairs done through Council as it is out of borough”.
That leads me to my next point. One of the biggest problems with temporary accommodation, aside from the poor conditions and the disrepair, is the location. People are often sent miles away from home, without the new local authority even being notified of their arrival. At the end of June 2022, 26,130 households were in temporary accommodation in a different local authority area from the one to which they had applied. Those 26,130 households are further away from their family, friends, schools, jobs, church, synagogue or mosque—everything that keeps them safe.
The impact is particularly bad for children who are about to take exams. Imagine if your son or daughter were in year 11 or year 13, about to take their GCSEs or A-levels, and you could not get them to school because you were hundreds of miles away from home. No local school would accept your child at that stage in their education. That is another breach of the code of guidance, paragraph 17.53 of which states that councils should be
“minimising the disruption to the education of children and young people…at critical points in time such as leading up to taking GCSE (or their equivalent) examinations.”
That is clearly not happening in practice.
I do not mean to criticise local authorities for these failures. In nearly all cases, councils are doing their best, but they are in a bind because they are under incredible pressure. Children experiencing housing instability are seeing their social relationships broken. Their academic performance is poor, their access to healthcare is limited and they are more likely to be psychologically distressed.

David Simmonds: The hon. Lady refers to securing children’s education during a move. I have constituents who have moved into the area, often after fleeing violence in other places, for whom that has been an issue. Does she agree that the proposed regulation of multi-academy trusts might be able to address that? At present, local authorities do not have any powers to direct an academy to take a child in order that they can sit examinations. If we restored that power to local authorities or introduced such a requirement on academies as an element of inspection, it would at least guarantee that parents who have to move could find a school in the new area at which their child could sit their GCSEs or A-levels.

Siobhain McDonagh: I would have no problem with changing the rules for multi-academy trusts, but I do not think that that alone would resolve the difficulty. Most schools would be loth to take a child in year 11 or year 13 because they would be in the second year of their exams and the curriculums would not match. Schools of all statuses are concerned about their performance.
The 26,000 families I described are forced to travel an estimated 400,000 miles each year to access temporary accommodation—the equivalent of going 16 times around the globe. On one day at the civic centre in my constituency,  the only temporary accommodation that could be offered to families was in Telford, 170 miles away from their home borough, and that is not unique. How can someone possibly start putting their life back together when they are 170 miles away from the borough they have been living in? And that was in Merton, which does not have the same problems as other London boroughs.
Across the UK, as I said, the total temporary accommodation expenditure has reached £1.6 billion, of which three quarters was funded by housing benefit. That is not money well spent. If we moved each family out of temporary accommodation and into social rented housing, we would save £572 million a year. As the Public Accounts Committee put it, not only is temporary accommodation
“often of a poor standard”,
but it
“does not offer value for money.”
I am aware that the Government have supported the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), which would try to raise standards  in exempt accommodation, but it is important to  note that exempt accommodation is distinct from  temporary accommodation. Exempt accommodation provides accommodation with extra support for more marginalised groups such as recent prison leavers, care leavers, those fleeing domestic violence and homeless people with substance dependence or mental health issues. Exempt accommodation is a problem of its own, with landlords exploiting the housing benefit system to profit from vulnerable people, but it should be noted that temporary accommodation is different. It represents people who are either awaiting the outcome of a homelessness application under the 1996 Act, or awaiting an offer of suitable accommodation.
I will finish by saying that, after nearly 30 years of Ofsted, we know that unless a school knows that Ofsted is coming, problems begin. A substantial proportion of outstanding schools that were not inspected for five years have recently been graded as needing improvement. Organisations—the best organisations—need to know that somebody is coming, and in a reasonable time. The same is true of councils that are meant to be ensuring that the standards and code of guidance are met. The Government clearly think that schools and children’s social services departments should be independently inspected. What is different about temporary accommodation for homeless families? The Government provide a national curriculum for schools. They do not just say, “That’s okay—I’m sure the curriculum is being followed.” They actually check to see that it is happening. We can talk about what we are going to introduce, such as different pieces of guidance for councils, but unless local authority housing departments are inspected in the same way that schools and children’s social services departments are, we can never expect the standards in temporary accommodation to be safe.

Mike Amesbury: I welcome the opportunity to speak again on this important Bill. I do so as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and as a former shadow Housing Minister.
I would like to focus my remarks on the amendments relating to inspections. I also want to reiterate the importance of tenant empowerment, on which the shadow  Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and the Minister spoke eloquently. I think it is clear that, across the House, this legislation is considered to be highly significant, highly needed and certainly long overdue.
I welcome, as do other Members across the House, the constructive approach to the Bill, which will address the issues that matter to local authorities, housing associations, residents and, vitally, tenants. It will improve their access to swift and fair redress through stronger and more proactive consumer and citizen regulations. I hope that the cross-party work with key stakeholders will ensure that the Bill is effective and addresses the real issues of tenants, including through the professionalisation of housing management in the social housing sector. A number of new clauses and amendments in that regard have cross-party support.
I have said throughout the progress of this Bill that it is the voices of tenants and residents that should take centre stage. It is vital that we have a system of social housing regulation that puts the rights and interests of residents at its heart, and that deals with the historical stigma that social tenants have faced for years, as was highlighted by Grenfell United, by Shelter and, in tragic circumstances recently, by Awaab’s family.
Like the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, I would like matters to go further, to empower tenants and ensure that their voices will never again go unheard. I was disappointed, as was my hon. Friend, that the Government rejected a number of amendments in Committee. I therefore strongly support amendments 36 and 37 and new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would ensure that much-needed representation of tenants on the advisory panel.
On the need for regular inspections, although I am pleased with the intentions of the Bill, it is another aspect that needs to go further to ensure that we do not fail tenants and residents. Residents are at risk of being failed whether their landlord is a provider of more than 10,000 houses or fewer than 1,000. Therefore, it is essential that the Bill ensures that every registered provider will be subject to routine inspections, as has been argued across the Chamber, particularly on the Opposition Benches.

Clive Betts: The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee held an inquiry into social housing regulation. I think we are waiting for a Government response to our report from several months ago, although we have had one from the housing ombudsman and the regulator. It was far from clear whether inspections by the regulator will go further than simply inspecting the framework of the organisations, instead going into properties and looking at what is done. The regulator had not quite taken that step in its response.

Mike Amesbury: As always, I have the utmost respect for the Chair of the Select Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that powerful and informed point.
We are in a social housing crisis. Tenants deserve so much better—the very best public housing that this country could provide. That is where we should be  going, whether the Government of today or a Labour Government in the not-too-distant future. Tenants deserve so much better. We should not hold back when it comes to the safety, health and wellbeing of tenants and residents. We must make the most of the Bill and act collectively with key stakeholders so that we do not have a repetition of the disasters of the not-too-distant past, such as the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy and the most recent tragic death of Awaab, which has been referred to across this Chamber—my heart goes out to his family.
Everyone should feel safe in their home. It should be a place of sanctuary, not anxiety and worry. Let us not waste this opportunity as the Bill goes through its passage in the House. Let us be bold. Let us work together in this place.

Dehenna Davison: With the leave of the House, I will try to address the concerns raised by Members across the House. First, I thank hon. Members with all sincerity for their thoughtful and considered debate, not just today but throughout the passage of the Bill. We have dealt with things in a constructive manner, ultimately to try to strengthen the Bill to its fullest extent and provide the maximum protection for social housing residents.
I will seek to answer as many questions as I can, starting with Awaab’s law. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who is not here today, for their constructive engagement following the devastating case of Awaab, which touched them and many of us in this House incredibly personally.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for amendments (a) to (f) to Government new clause 1 relating to Awaab’s law. However, we are clear that our current proposals already sufficiently achieve what the hon. Member is seeking to do. Prescribed requirements are already defined in new clause 1 and therefore do not need to be defined in the alternative way proposed. Moreover, new clause 1 already gives us the power to make provision ensuring that social housing providers’ duty to meet requirements cannot be overridden or circumvented by the terms of the lease. We also think it important to be able to make provision enabling the landlord to inspect the property to ascertain whether there are any hazards present, provided reasonable notice is given if it is to be under an obligation to rectify prescribed hazards.
As I have made clear, we will consult on Awaab’s law within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent. The consultation will inform the detail of the regulations that the Secretary of State will set for Awaab’s law, including timescales and details on the prescribed hazards themselves. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who raised concerns on that point. I reiterate the importance of setting requirements that deliver the best outcomes for residents, while being achievable, proportionate and evidence-based. I assure the House that with new clause 1, landlords will have no choice but to comply with new regulations and to take action to ensure homes are free of hazards that pose health risks to their residents. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.
On professionalisation, on which many Members expressed their concerns and passion, I am incredibly grateful for the broad support across the House for our amendment. I believe our approach is the right way to drive up professional standards in the sector, but we will of course carry out further engagement with the sector, including landlords, tenants and professional bodies, as we develop our approach to implementation. I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is no longer in his place but who raised that point earlier.
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, seeks to extend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers of social housing. I am grateful to him, and to the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Salford and Eccles for raising their concerns. I think we can all agree that increasing transparency in the sector is hugely important, but I do not believe that new clause 6 is necessary or advisable at this stage. Development of the access to information scheme, one of the Government’s commitments in the social housing White Paper, is already well under way. Through the scheme, private registered providers will have similar obligations as they would under the Freedom of Information Act. The tenants of providers, and their representatives, will be able to request information from their landlords in much the same way. I am also concerned—I am sorry to raise this point on another issue—that extending FOI to registered providers would increase the level of Government control exercised over the sector and may lead to the Office for National Statistics reclassifying housing associations. That is something we are incredibly concerned about.
On new clause 7, relating to Georgia’s law, I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for campaigning on this matter and for raising the really sad case of Georgia and her family. I am grateful to her for engaging with me in a really constructive fashion as we sought to find a middle road that the Government could accept in line with the new clause she is proposing. Unfortunately, we are unable to support it today, and I will explain why that is the case. I note the hon. Lady’s additions to bring assured tenancies within the scope of her new clause, but I reiterate my concern, raised in Committee, about the new clause itself—if not its intent, which I think we can all agree is incredibly admirable. I remain concerned that binding housing providers with policies that remove flexibility to choose who they give tenancies to is not the right course of action. Those decisions are devolved for good reason.

Helen Hayes: Does the Minister accept the facts of the situation, which are as follows: the tenants who would benefit from this provision remain social housing tenants for the first six months that they are in temporary accommodation? We really are not talking about a shifting of priority among people who are on the housing waiting list; we are talking about rehousing existing tenants. The home that they vacate would then become available much more quickly precisely for those people who are genuinely on the housing waiting list.

Dehenna Davison: The hon. Lady raises a really strong point. As I outlined, our concern is about removing flexibility from social housing providers. Every social  housing provider and every area faces very different challenges. We want to ensure that they have the maximum flexibility to deal with those challenges. That is why, unfortunately, we cannot support new clause 7, but I thank her again for campaigning on this issue.
New clause 8 was tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), and I am grateful to her for meeting me to discuss her proposal further following Committee. I know how passionate she is about this issue, and her expertise has certainly brought a great deal to my knowledge and understanding of some of the problems faced by residents of temporary accommodation. She is right to say that we must drive up standards for all tenants, but what concerns me, as it did in Committee, is that this measure would be outside the scope of the Bill. We will certainly explore it with her to make sure that we drive up standards in temporary accommodation as well, but this Bill deals specifically with social housing, and we want to keep it tight to ensure that it achieves its desired aims.
Amendments 36, 37 and 38 deal with the advisory panel that will advise the regulator on a wide range of matters relating to social housing. As I said in Committee, I do want to see tenants at the heart of the changes we are delivering through the Bill—I am firmly committed to that—but I do not necessarily think the amendments are the best way to achieve that. The purpose of the advisory panel is to provide independent and unbiased advice to the regulator. I believe the separate resident panel that we have established is better placed to share views directly with the Government and Ministers. Its members have been asked to tell us what they think about our approach to improving the quality of social housing, and whether our interventions will deliver the changes that they want to see. We think that our approach is the right one.
A number of Members spoke about inspections, including the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The introduction of regular consumer inspections will be a key part of the proactive consumer regulation regime. It will strengthen the regulator’s oversight of the sector, ensuring that he or she can identify issues early and take effective action when necessary. The system that we propose will be based on a robust risk profile, ensuring that when landlords are at the greatest risk of failure, or when such failure would have the greatest impact on tenants, they are subject to greater oversight. As the shadow Minister knows, we have already amended the Bill to require the regulator to publish, and take reasonable steps to implement, a plan for regular inspections. When developing the plan, the regulator will engage closely with the sector, including tenants, and it is right that we do not pre-empt that process.
Let me turn briefly to amendment 41, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). The Government are absolutely committed to preventing homelessness. Significant work has already been done to address this important issue, including the publication of the Government’s bold new strategy “Ending rough sleeping for good”. We are investing £2 billion in measures to deal with homelessness and rough sleeping over the next three years, and our work in this area is already making an impact. Since the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, more than half a million  households have been helped to move into secure accommodation. I cannot accept the amendment, as I believe that the existing legislation can achieve the outcome that the hon. Lady is seeking.

Clive Betts: In an earlier intervention I mentioned the Select Committee’s report and the fact that we are still waiting for a Government response, several months later. One of the issues that arose was the need to address problems such as damp and mould in properties. Some housing associations and councils will need to regenerate whole estates substantially and probably rebuild them, but in doing so they will be hit by Homes England’s “no net additionality” rule. Homes England cannot fund any scheme that replaces poor homes with good ones if more homes are not provided. Will the Minister agree to look into that? It can be an obstacle to many important ways of addressing these problems.

Dehenna Davison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, and for bringing his intense expertise to the debate. I will certainly do that, and I will chase up the response to the Select Committee’s report as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) also brought considerable expertise to the debate, and I thank him for his support for the Bill. He asked about unscrupulous providers seeking loopholes. I hope I can reassure him by saying that we have deliberately designed the Bill to tighten the existing economic regulatory regime in order to prevent new types of provider from taking advantage of possible loopholes in the system and to ensure that we are future-proofing it against such issues.
I would like to thank hon. Members across the House who have spoken here today and particularly those who have been involved in the earlier stages of the Bill. Cross-party, this shows that we are all committed to driving up standards in social housing and to empowering tenants to ensure that we never again see an incident like the tragedies of Grenfell and Awaab Ishak. Together we have strengthened the Bill substantially, and with our amendments today will do so even further.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members

“(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In the italic heading before section 51, for ‘complaints’ substitute ‘ombudsman’.
(3) After section 51 insert—
‘51ZA Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members
(1) This section applies where a scheme is approved by the Secretary of State under Schedule 2.
(2) The housing ombudsman may issue to the members of the scheme guidance as to good practice in the carrying on of housing activities covered by the scheme.
(3) Before issuing, revising or replacing guidance under this section, the housing ombudsman must consult—
(a) the Regulator of Social Housing,
(b) members of the scheme, and
(c) individuals who may make complaints under the scheme.
(4) If the housing ombudsman issues, revises or replaces guidance under this section, the housing ombudsman must publish the guidance, the revised guidance or (as the case may be) the replacement guidance.
(5) Subsection (7) applies if—
(a) an individual makes a complaint against a member of the scheme,
(b) the complaint is made under the scheme or the conditions in subsection (6) are met in relation to the complaint, and
(c) it appears to the housing ombudsman that the complaint relates to a matter to which guidance issued by the ombudsman under this section relates.
(6) The conditions referred to in subsection (5)(b) are that—
(a) the complaint is made to the member of the scheme,
(b) the complaint is one that the individual could subsequently make under the scheme, and
(c) the individual has notified the ombudsman about the complaint.
(7) The housing ombudsman may order the member of the scheme to—
(a) assess whether the member’s policies and practices in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (5)(c) are consistent with the guidance issued by the ombudsman under this section in relation to that matter, and
(b) within a period specified in the order, submit to the ombudsman a written statement of the results of the assessment.
(8) If a member of the scheme fails to comply with an order under subsection (7) within the period specified in the order, the housing ombudsman may order the member to publish in such manner as the ombudsman sees fit a statement that the member has failed to comply with the order.
(9) If a member of the scheme fails to comply with an order under subsection (8), the housing ombudsman may—
(a) take such steps as the ombudsman considers appropriate to publish what the member ought to have published, and
(b) recover from the member the costs of doing so.
(10) In this section, “the housing ombudsman” means the housing ombudsman appointed in accordance with the scheme.’”—(Dehenna Davison.)
This new clause confers a power on a housing ombudsman to issue to scheme members guidance as to good practice in the carrying on of housing activities. The new clause also provides that in certain circumstances where a complaint is made against a scheme member the housing ombudsman may order the scheme member to assess whether its policies and practices in relation to a matter to which the complaint relates are consistent with the guidance.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Action after inspection

“(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 202 (inspections: supplemental), omit subsections (1) to (3).
(3) In section 203(12) (definition of ‘inspector’), after ‘this section’ insert ‘and section 203A’.
(4) After section 203 insert—
‘203A Action after inspection
(1) After an inspection of a registered provider is carried out by an inspector under section 201, the inspector must produce—
(a) a written summary of the inspector’s findings, and
(b) a written report about any matters specified by the regulator.
(2) The summary and any report must be in the form specified by the regulator.
(3) The regulator may specify matters, or the form of a summary or report, for the purposes of inspections generally or for the purposes of a particular inspection or description of inspection.
(4) The regulator must give the registered provider a copy of the summary of the inspector’s findings.
(5) The regulator must also give the registered provider—
(a) a copy of the inspector’s report, or
(b) a notice confirming that no matters were specified for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).
(6) The regulator may publish—
(a) all or part of the summary of the inspector’s findings,
(b) (where relevant) all or part of the inspector’s report, and
(c) related information.’”—(Dehenna Davison.)
This new clause replaces and changes provision about what the inspector and the regulator must do after an inspection. It enables the regulator to determine whether the inspector must produce a report (rather than just a summary of findings) and, if so, what matters the report must cover.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4 - Secretary of State’s duty to give direction about providing information to tenants

“(1) The Secretary of State must give a direction to the Regulator of Social Housing under section 197(2A) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 about setting a standard under section 194B of that Act (standards relating to information and transparency) for the purpose of securing that registered providers of social housing are required to provide their tenants of low cost rental accommodation with information about—
(a) their tenants’ rights in connection with the low cost rental accommodation and with facilities or services provided in connection with that accommodation, and
(b) how their tenants can make a complaint against them.
(2) The Secretary of State must give the direction before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) In this section—
‘low cost rental accommodation’ means accommodation which—
(a) is low cost rental accommodation (as defined in section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008) provided by a registered provider of social housing, and
(b) is not low cost home ownership accommodation (as defined in section 70 of that Act);
‘tenant’, in relation to low cost rental accommodation, includes other occupiers.”—(Dehenna Davison.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State, within 6 months of Royal Assent, to give a direction to the regulator for the purpose of securing that registered providers of social housing are required to provide their tenants of low cost rental accommodation with information about the tenants’ rights and about making complaints against their landlord.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety

‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 92K insert—
“92KA A Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(1) Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure tenancy or assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and
(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.
(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—
(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy; and
(b) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—
(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;
(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;
(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—
(a) the registered provider,
(b) the tenant, or
(c) any member of the tenant’s household.
(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.”’—(Helen Hayes.)
This new clause would require the regulator to ensure that tenants whose safety is threatened are granted alternative accommodation by their housing provider on equivalent terms to their existing tenancy. It also requires the regulator to ensure that a provider which is unable to provide appropriate alternative accommodation co-operates with other providers to do so.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 273.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 - Fundamental objectives

Amendment proposed: 42, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(2) In section 92K of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (fundamental objectives), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) In undertaking its objective under subsection (2)(b) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State at least every three years on whether the provision of social housing in England and Wales is sufficient to meet reasonable demands, and must make recommendations to the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the provision of social housing is so sufficient.
(3B) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any reports prepared by virtue of subsection (3A).
(3C) In undertaking its objective under subsection (3)(a) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State on the progress of the removal of unsafe cladding and the remediation of other fire safety defects in social housing, and may make recommendations to the Secretary of State on further action required.’”—(Helen Morgan.)
This amendment would include in the regulator’s objective a requirement to report to the Government on the removal of cladding. It would also require the regulator to report to the Government on the adequacy of the stock of social housing, and lay a copy of any such report before Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 273.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12 - Moratorium on disposal of land

Amendments made: 4, page 11, line 30, leave out
“with the day after the day on which”
and insert “when”.
This amendment changes the starting point of the moratorium so it begins when an insolvency event occurs, as opposed to the day after the event occurs.
Amendment 5, page 12, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
“(d) a notice of the appointment of an administrator of the provider under paragraph 14 or 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 is filed with the court under paragraph 18 or 29 of that Schedule;”.
Where there is an appointment of an administrator of a private registered provider, this amendment provides for the moratorium to start when the notice of appointment of the administrator is filed with the court (as opposed to when the appointment is made).
Amendment 6, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
“(eb) in subsection (3), for the words from ‘period,’ to the end substitute ‘period if—
(a) the regulator has made reasonable enquiries with a view to locating secured creditors of the registered provider, and
(b) where the regulator located one or more such creditors, each of them has consented to the extension.’;”.
This amendment amends the provision which enables the regulator to extend a moratorium to make it clear that the regulator can do so where the regulator has made enquiries but has been unable to locate any secured creditors of the registered provider (as well as where secured creditors have been located and agreed to the extension).
Amendment 7, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
“(eb) in subsection (5), omit the words from ‘if’ to the end;”.
This amendment widens the regulator’s power to cancel a moratorium so the regulator can cancel it for any reason.
Amendment 8, page 12, line 43, at end insert—
“(4) In section 147 (further moratorium), in subsection (3), for the words from ‘period,’ to the end substitute ‘period if—
(a) the regulator has made reasonable enquiries with a view to locating secured creditors of the registered provider, and
(b) where the regulator located one or more such creditors, each of them has consented to the further moratorium.’”
This amendment amends the provision which enables the regulator to impose a further moratorium to make it clear that the regulator can do so where the regulator has made enquiries but has been unable to locate any secured creditors of the registered provider (as well as where secured creditors have been located and agreed to the further moratorium).
Amendment 9, page 12, line 43, at end insert—
“(5) In section 151 (appointment of interim manager during moratorium), in subsection (4), for paragraph (b) (but not the ‘or’ following it) substitute—
‘(b) when the regulator notifies the interim manager that there are proposals under section 152 which are agreed proposals,’.”
(6) In section 153 (procedure for proposals made during moratorium)—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) if the regulator is able to locate any secured creditors of the registered provider after making reasonable enquiries, those creditors,’;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) If no secured creditors are located for the purposes of subsection (1), the proposals made by the regulator following the consultation required by that subsection are agreed proposals for the purposes of this group of sections.’;
(c) in subsection (2)—
(i) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute ‘Where the regulator locates one or more secured creditors of the registered provider for the purposes of subsection (1), the regulator must, before making proposals, send a copy of draft proposals to—’;
(ii) for paragraph (b) (but not the ‘and’ following it) substitute—
‘(b) the secured creditors located for the purposes of subsection (1),’
(d) in subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a) for the words from ‘The regulator’ to ‘bringing’ substitute ‘If the regulator sends draft proposals under subsection (2), the regulator must also make arrangements for bringing those’;
(e) for subsection (4) substitute—
‘(4) If each secured creditor to whom draft proposals were required to be sent agrees to them by notice to the regulator, the draft proposals become agreed proposals for the purposes of this group of sections.’
(f) in subsection (5)—
(i) in the words before paragraph (a) for ‘Proposals’ substitute ‘Draft proposals’;
(ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘proposals were sent’ substitute ‘draft proposals were required to be sent’;
(g) in subsection (6)(b)—
(i) for ‘its’ substitute ‘any’;
(ii) for ‘the original’ substitute ‘draft’;
(h) for subsection (8) substitute—
‘(8) The regulator may make proposals amending agreed proposals; and this section and section 152 apply to such proposals.’”.
This amendment makes a number of changes to the process by which proposals about future management etc of a registered provider made during a moratorium are agreed.
Amendment 10, page 12, line 43, at end insert—
“(7) In section 158 (assistance by regulator in connection with proposals), in subsection (1), for ‘the agreement of proposals’ substitute ‘the regulator deciding whether to exercise the power under section 152 to make proposals and (if proposals are made) the proposals becoming agreed proposals’.”.—(Dehenna Davison.)
This amendment enables the regulator to give financial or other assistance to a registered provider during a moratorium while the regulator is deciding whether or not to make proposals.

Clause 21 - Standards relating to competence and conduct

Amendments made: 44, page 17, line 22, at end insert “(‘relevant individuals’)”.
This amendment provides a label by which to refer to the persons described so it is easier to refer to them again elsewhere in the provision.
Amendment 45, page 17, line 26, leave out from beginning to “, and” in line 27 and insert “relevant individuals,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, page 17, line 28, leave out “such” and insert “relevant”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
“(3) Standards under subsection (1) may require registered providers to secure that their relevant managers—
(a) have a specified qualification in housing management or type of qualification in housing management, or
(b) are working towards such a qualification or type of qualification.
(4) A ‘relevant manager’ means—
(a) a senior housing executive, or
(b) a senior housing manager.
(5) A qualification or type of qualification specified for a senior housing executive may only be—
(a) a foundation degree, or
(b) a qualification or type of qualification regulated by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation which is of a level not exceeding level 5.
(6) A qualification or type of qualification specified for a senior housing manager may only be a qualification or type of qualification regulated by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation which is of a level not exceeding level 4.
(7) Except as provided by subsections (3) to (6), standards under subsection (1) may not require registered providers to comply with rules about the qualifications to be required of relevant individuals.
(8) In this section, ‘senior housing executive’ means a relevant individual who—
(a) is an employee or officer of the registered provider,
(b) has responsibility (solely or jointly) for the day to day management of the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing provided by the provider, and
(c) is part of the provider’s senior management.
(9) For the purposes of this section, an individual is part of a registered provider’s senior management if the individual plays a significant role in—
(a) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of the activities of the provider which relate to social housing are to be managed or organised, or
(b) the management or organisation of the whole or a substantial part of such activities.
(10) In this section, ‘senior housing manager’ means a relevant individual who—
(a) is an employee of the registered provider, and
(b) is a senior housing and property manager for the registered provider.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (10)(b), whether an individual is a senior housing and property manager is to be determined by reference to the description of the occupation of senior housing and property management published by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education under section ZA10(5) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
(12) The references in subsections (5) and (6) to the level of a qualification is to the level assigned to a qualification by virtue of general conditions set and published by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation under section 134 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
(13) For the purposes of this section, ‘employee’ includes a person employed under a contract of apprenticeship.”.—(Dehenna Davison.)
This amendment is to enable the regulator to set standards to ensure that those with management responsibilities at a registered provider have, or are working towards getting, certain qualifications.

Clause 22 - Standards relating to information and transparency

Amendments made: 11, page 17, line 36, at end insert
“, including standards requiring information to be published”.
This amendment makes clear that standards set by the regulator under section 194B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (inserted by clause 22) may require information to be published.
Amendment 12, page 18, line 3, at end insert
“including information concerning—
(i) their tenants’ rights in connection with those things, and
(ii) how to make complaints against registered providers,”. —(Dehenna Davison.)
This amendment makes clear that the regulator’s power under section 194B(1) and (2)(a) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (inserted by clause 22) includes power to require compliance with rules about the provision of information to tenants about their rights and about making complaints against their landlord.

Clause 28

Inspection plan
Amendment proposed: 40, page 23, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—
“(a) the inspection of every registered provider within four years of the commencement of this Act,
(b) the inspection of every registered provider at intervals of no longer than four years thereafter, and”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment would ensure that the regulator is required to carry out regular inspections of every registered provider.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 276.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 42 - Commencement

Amendments made: 13, page 37, line 1, after “Section” insert
“(Secretary of State’s duty to give direction about providing information to tenants) and”.
This amendment brings NC4 into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
Amendment 2, page 37, line 1, after “Section 38” insert
“and (Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members)”.—(Dehenna Davison.)
This amendment brings NC2 into force 2 months after Royal Assent.

Schedule 2 - Amendments to restrictions on insolvency procedures

Amendments made: 15, page 41, line 11, leave out
“and signed, by the petitioner,”
and insert—
“(aa) be signed by, or on behalf of, the petitioner,”.
This amendment enables a notice of a petition for the winding-up of a registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 104(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to be signed by someone acting on the petitioner’s behalf.
Amendment 16, page 41, leave out line 14.
This amendment removes the requirement for a notice of a petition for the winding-up of a registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 104(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to explain why the petition is being presented.
Amendment 17, page 41, line 17, leave out “(b),” and insert “(aa), (b) or”.
This amendment enables the regulator to treat a notice which hasn’t been signed as validly given.
Amendment 18, page 41, line 17, leave out “or (d)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Amendment 19, page 41, line 25, leave out
“and signed, by the registered provider,”
and insert—
“(aa) be signed by, or on behalf of, the registered provider,”.
This amendment enables a notice of an application for voluntary winding up of a registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 105(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to be signed by someone acting on the registered provider’s behalf.
Amendment 20, page 41, leave out line 28.
This amendment removes the requirement for a notice of an application for voluntary winding up of a registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 105(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to explain why the application has been made.
Amendment 21, page 41, line 31, leave out “(b),” and insert “(aa), (b) or”.
This amendment enables the regulator to treat a notice which hasn’t been signed as validly given.
Amendment 22, page 41, line 31, leave out “or (d)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 23, page 42, line 3, leave out from “writing,” to end of line 4 and insert—
“(aa) be signed by, or on behalf of, the person who made the ordinary administration application,”.
This amendment enables a notice of an ordinary administration application in relation to a private registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 106(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to be signed by someone acting on the applicant’s behalf.
Amendment 24, page 42, leave out line 7.
This amendment removes the requirement for a notice of an ordinary administration application in relation to a private registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 106(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to explain why the application has been made.
Amendment 25, page 42, line 10, leave out “(b),” and insert “(aa), (b) or”.
This amendment enables the regulator to treat a notice which hasn’t been signed as validly given.
Amendment 26, page 42, line 10, leave out “or (d)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.
Amendment 27, page 42, line 23, leave out
“and signed, by the person making the appointment,”
and insert—
“(aa) be signed by, or on behalf of, the person making the appointment,”.
This amendment enables a notice of appointment of an administrator in relation to a private registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 107(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to be signed by someone acting on behalf of the person making the appointment.
Amendment 28, page 42, leave out line 30.
This amendment removes the requirement for a notice of appointment of an administrator in relation to a private registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 107(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to explain the reason for the appointment.
Amendment 29, page 42, line 33, leave out “(b),” and insert “(aa), (b) or”.
This amendment enables the regulator to treat a notice which hasn’t been signed as validly given.
Amendment 30, page 42, line 33, leave out “or (d)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.
Amendment 31, page 43, line 4, leave out from “and” to end of line 5 and insert—
“(aa) be signed by, or on behalf of, the person intending to enforce the security.”.
This amendment enables a notice of intention to enforce a security over property of a private registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 108(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to be signed by someone acting on behalf of the person intending to enforce the security.
Amendment 32, page 43, leave out lines 6 and 7.
This amendment removes the requirement for a notice of intention to enforce a security over property of a private registered provider, which is given to the regulator under section 108(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, to explain the reason for the person intending to enforce the security.
Amendment 33, page 43, line 10, after “paragraph” insert “(aa)”.
This amendment enables the regulator to treat a notice which hasn’t been signed as validly given.
Amendment 34, page 43, line 10, leave out “(b)”.—(Dehenna Davison.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.

Schedule 5 - Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 14, page 52, line 25, at end insert—
“(aa) in subsection (2)(f), for ‘and informing tenants’ substitute ‘tenants and providing them with information in connection with such consultation’;”.
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of section 194B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (standards relating to information and transparency) (by clause 22). It clarifies the scope of the existing power under section 193(1) and (2)(f) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to impose rules about methods of consulting and informing tenants.
Amendment 35, page 54, line 34, at end insert—
“43A After section 276A (inserted by section 33) insert—
‘276B Data protection
(1) This section applies to a duty or power to process information where the duty or power is imposed or conferred by or by virtue of any provision of this Part.
(2) A duty or power to which this section applies does not operate to require or authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing would contravene that legislation).
(3) In this section ‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).’.”—(Dehenna Davison.)
This amendment makes clear that nothing in Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (which is amended by the Bill) requires or enables a person to disclose or otherwise process personal data if doing so would contravene the data protection legislation.

Title

Amendments made: 1, line 2, after “complaints;” insert
“about hazards affecting social housing;”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 3, line 2, after “complaints;” insert
“about the powers and duties of a housing ombudsman appointed under an approved scheme;”.—(Dehenna Davison.)
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Third Reading

Dehenna Davison: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank the Department’s Bill team, its policy and legal officials, and my amazing private office team, who have worked hard to deliver this legislation through both Houses. I also thank the House authorities, parliamentary staff, Clerks, Doorkeepers and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have participated in the debate today and at previous stages.
In particular, I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his time and his thoughtful contributions. Although we have disagreed about one or two aspects on the path to Third Reading, I hope that he will agree that the Bill delivers welcome change for millions of residents across the country by strengthening the powers of the regulator and empowering social housing tenants to hold their landlord to account.
The Bill is integral to this Government’s ongoing commitment to learning lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire and ensuring that such an appalling tragedy never happens again. I remain incredibly grateful for all the contributions from the community throughout, as well as their ongoing engagement with the Department. Specifically, I know that Grenfell United has long campaigned for mandatory qualifications to be introduced to the sector, bringing it in line with other sectors that provide frontline services. We have been listening, including to those in both Houses who spoke so passionately on the matter, and have been working hard to find a solution. I am very proud to stand before the House today having amended the Bill to deliver that critical change in the sector in order to benefit the experience of tenants.
At this point, it would be remiss of me to not acknowledge the coroner’s report that shone a light on the heartbreaking case of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in Rochdale. Words alone cannot help his family to hear from such an unimaginable and inexcusably preventable loss, but I hope they can find some degree of comfort in the amendment to the Bill made in his name, which will make clear to landlords that hazards such as damp and mould have absolutely no place in their tenants’ homes. We must do more to ensure that people are safe in their own home, and that starts with landlords providing high-quality accommodation and a high-quality service to all of their tenants. I sincerely hope that the residents and families of Grenfell, including Grenfell United, as well as the Ishak family can look on this Bill as part of their own legacy of delivering real change in the social housing sector for the people living in that sector, because they really need it.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Matthew Pennycook: I start by thanking the Clerks, the House staff, and Library specialists for facilitating our debates on this important piece of legislation, and all the external organisations—including Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing, and the Greater Manchester Law Centre—that have engaged extensively with us on it.

Eddie Hughes: Will the shadow Minister give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I will.

Eddie Hughes: I apologise for the very early intervention, but as the Minister who was partly responsible for overseeing the transition from White Paper to Bill, I just wanted to thank the incredible team who sit behind the Minister in the Box for their work. I see some very familiar faces, belonging to some very committed individuals, and I was certainly very grateful for their contribution. I am sure the Minister was, too.

Matthew Pennycook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I certainly thank that team, and I thank him for all the work he has done in this area as well.
I also thank the Minister for the constructive tone with which she has approached the legislation, as well as all hon. Members who have contributed to our proceedings at all stages, particularly those who took the Bill so ably through Committee. Lastly, I pay tribute on behalf of the Opposition to the work of Grenfell United and the Grenfell Foundation, which have pushed at every turn for this legislation to come forward and to ensure it is strengthened, and to the family of Awaab Ishak, who with dignity and fortitude have campaigned for—and will now have secured—a change in the law that I have no doubt will save lives.
We know from the circumstances leading up to the Grenfell Tower fire, those surrounding the death of Awaab Ishak, and countless other appalling cases that never attracted media attention that poorly maintained and managed social housing can literally kill. That is why it is so important that we overhaul the regulation of social housing, and that this Bill passes. It is almost six years since 72 men, women and children lost their lives  at Grenfell. More than four and a half years have passed since the Green Paper was issued, and more than two have passed since the White Paper was published. There is no question that it took the Government far too long to bring us to this moment, but we are extremely pleased that this necessary and urgently required Bill will complete its remaining Commons stages today.
The Opposition were determined to see the Bill strengthened in a number of areas, so that standards in social housing markedly and rapidly improve, tenants are able to pursue effective redress, and those tenants are empowered and their voices truly listened to. We welcome the various concessions and revisions that the Government have made, which without question have improved the Bill. However, as things stand, we do not believe that it is the most robust piece of legislation that this House could have delivered for tenants. We support the passage of the Bill tonight, because millions of those living in social homes across England need action now to address the plight of poor conditions and neglect and negligence at the hands of their landlords, but we hope that the Government will reflect further on the compelling arguments we have made for changes to further strengthen this vital piece of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

Estimates (Liaison Committee Recommendation)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145(3)),
That this House agrees with the Report of the Liaison Committee of 27 February:
That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for the financial year 2022–23: Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, insofar as it relates to adult social care; and Department for Education, insofar as it relates to childcare and early years.—(Fay Jones.) Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),

Civil Aviation

That the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Fay Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),

Agriculture

That the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Fay Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),
That the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Fay Jones.)
Question agreed to.

Work of the Law Commission

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Fay Jones.)

Robert Buckland: It is my pleasure to speak in this slightly early Adjournment debate on the work of the Law Commission. By that, I mean the Law Commission of England and Wales, as opposed to the Scottish Law Commission, founded in 1965, which does excellent work north of the border, and the Northern Ireland Law Commission, which sadly has not been functioning since 2015. On that note, as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I very much hope that as part of the normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland, we see that body working and contributing to better law and law reform in Northern Ireland. It is to the Law Commission of England and Wales that my remarks relate, and I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Minister in his place.
First, I will talk about the purposes of the Law Commission. It is nearly 60 years since it was created by one of my predecessors, the noble Lord Gardiner. Since that time, it has enjoyed the stewardship of many distinguished senior judges and dedicated lawyers and civil servants. Its objectives remain clear: first, simplification and modification of the law; secondly, the law’s codification; thirdly, the removal of anomalies in the law; fourthly, the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments; and, finally, the consolidation of legislation. Its objectives have been restated in recent years in its reports, and they are worth stating here on the Floor of the House. They are as follows:
“To be the authoritative voice on law reform; To make a difference through our law reform work; To be proactive in promoting the need for law reform in key areas and achieve ‘good law’;”—
a term that I will adopt—
“To have a strong reputation in the UK and abroad for being effective in the delivery of law reform; To attract the best talent and be an excellent place to work.”
I am pleased that as part of the Law Commission’s developing reform, back in 2020 when I was Lord Chancellor, I agreed a return to a full funding model for the Law Commission, with a focus on where law reform is most needed, rather it being a question of where the finances were available. While the cross-Whitehall funding source model, where other Departments were encouraged to work with the Law Commission on projects, was an interesting way to try to develop new initiatives on political priorities, it seemed to me that it did not provide the level of certainty needed for a longer-term view, for the retention of quality lawyers and researchers, and for the Law Commission to be able to plan with confidence over several years, rather than from year to year. The Law Commission works not just with the United Kingdom Government, but with the Welsh Government in Cardiff, and I will raise a very good example of that in a little while.
I draw the House’s attention to the important contribution that the Law Commission has made to the law as it has developed over the past few years. When the issue of the abuse of intimate images—a sensitive issue particularly affecting many women and girls and young men in our society—raised its head, the Law  Commission was asked to review the law and publish its final recommendations last year. It created a new proposed framework that dealt with a range of issues that went well beyond the reform that we made to the law on upskirting, to deal with deepfake images and the like—current, relevant and important concerns of the general public. I am glad to say that the Government adopted those recommendations and that we now see them in the Online Safety Bill.
The Law Commission has fresh recommendations that merit close examination by Ministers in the Home Office. Last November, it produced a series of recommendations to reform the system for the recovery of the proceeds of crime—again, a germane and relevant issue when it comes to the need for those who profit from criminality to repay the proceeds of that conduct. In particular, I was struck by its sensible recommendations to accelerate confiscation proceedings, to allow the taking of assets if a particular order was not paid—a much stronger approach to enforcement—and to strengthen restraint orders themselves, which are so important at the early stages of confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The proposals in that report merit immediate adoption by the Government—if not in this Session than certainly in the final Session before the end of the Parliament.
I was struck by a report that the Law Commission published in 2020, which was compiled for the Commission by independent economists. They revealed in their analysis that if the Law Commission’s recommendations were implemented for five key projects that they examined, the economic value of that implementation would exceed £3 billion over a period of 10 years. That is a striking amount of money involving only five projects. There are many more projects that the Law Commission has commissioned and completed, and I suspect the overall financial benefit to our country would significantly exceed even that hefty sum. In a wider analysis of 11 projects completed by the Law Commission, the independent analysts discovered that those projects would positively contribute to the lives of well over 27 million people in our country. This is therefore not a niche issue or a dry matter just for lawyers; it is a matter of public good and public benefit.
One of those five projects was the adoption of the sentencing code. For many years, the law of sentencing in England and Wales has been—from my own professional experience—a miasma of conflicting laws of various ages. It has often been more of a challenge for judges and lawyers to work out which provision applies in which area than it has been to focus on the outcome of sentencing, which surely has to be the justice of the case and the need for condign punishment.
The Law Commission’s work on developing a consolidated code, which would be much easier for judges and lawyers to use and would reduce the danger of mistakes or the need for appeal, was very much the preoccupation of the Court of Appeal, and something that I thought merited reform. I am glad that, as Lord Chancellor, I helped drive through both the paving Act and the Act that established the sentencing code in 2020. Why did I do that? Again, it was not just because of an obsession with neatness, though I do like neat and tidy laws; it was because the estimate of the reduction of costs was a grand total of up to £256 million over a period of 10 years. That is no small beer when it comes  to the criminal justice system, and I am proud that the Ministry of Justice did that during my time as Lord Chancellor.
There are many other examples of how the Law Commission has benefited this country. The creation of the Fraud Act 2006, which simplified the law of fraud, making it easier and more straightforward to understand and use in prosecutions, was the work of the Commission. The Care Act 2014, which ensured that the rights of carers and their families were better enshrined in law—again, something I was involved in as a Back Bencher—was also the product of Law Commission work. This is not merely dry talk for lawyers; this is about good law and good law reform protecting citizens and saving resources.
Law reform can ensure that new technology is better and more safely used and that the environmental protections we need in the light of climate change are in place to promote sustainable growth. Good law can lead to improvements in wellbeing and welfare by opening up opportunities and helping to improve health outcomes. Good law leads to clear and streamlined processes. It reduces inefficiency and increases predictability, which is great for businesses and good for investors, for our public sector and for all our citizens. There is a strong economic case for good law. Above all things, it helps to maintain the integrity of our legal system and of the rule of law itself. Achieving greater certainty in the law will reduce the need for litigation or challenge via the courts, which is a powerful way of ensuring that not only access to justice, but justice itself, is strengthened and deepened.
A busy Government with a packed agenda will say—I heard this many times during my long service on the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee —that there is no time in the legislative programme for such worthy projects. My argument is simple: let us make the time, and let us make this a priority. I am not sure that it is simply a question of having more hours during the week to do the work; I think it is much more about our sense of priorities. To allude to something Aneurin Bevan said in another context, it is about the religion of priorities. For example, if the Government made a couple of slots for law reform available in each King’s Speech, alongside the well-worn phrase that comes at the end of the Gracious Address about “other measures”, it could be incredibly helpful to business managers.
Law Commission Bills start in the Lords, where there is a special, well-established Committee procedure for suitably expert Members of that House to scrutinise and refine proposed legislation. In this House, we have Standing Order No. 59, which allows us to fast-track Law Commission Bills by referring them to a Second Reading Committee
“unless the House…otherwise orders”.
That is a very good head start, but I am not sure that it is enough for getting Law Commission Bills through this place.
Where the context and content of Law Commission Bills is entirely uncontroversial, there is no difficulty. Sometimes, however, although the content may not be controversial, the context is. There is always a danger present in the minds of business managers that the  scope of such a Bill may be just wide enough to allow amendments of a controversial nature. Let us take firearms legislation as an example. The criminal legislation on firearms is a mess: we have very good, tight firearms legislation in this country, but anybody who has read the Firearms Act 1968 understands that it needs consolidation and a thorough spring clean to make it much more comprehensible to practitioners and the general public. That seems uncontroversial, but inevitably there might be amendments to such a Bill that would be very controversial indeed. That is just one example that I am sure business managers would be concerned about, and no doubt the Leader of the House would have a view.
The Minister will say that these are matters for the House, not for the Government, but I think it would be helpful if he took the message to the Leader of the House —I know he will do so, because he is a former Paymaster General and knows the machinery of government—and asked her to work with the Procedure Committee. They could look again at how Standing Order No. 59 and the fast-track procedure in Standing Order No. 58 could allow Law Commission Bills to go straight from Second Reading to Third Reading without the need for a full Committee stage. That would be a sure-fire way to ensure that we can use Law Commission’s recommendations more frequently and make good law more regularly.
I pray in aid a very good example from Wales. The Law Commission’s report “Regulating Coal Tip Safety in Wales”, which was laid before the Senedd on 24 March last year, is very important in the context of the management of disused coal tips. I can tell the House from considerable knowledge, as a former Secretary of State for Wales and a proud Welshman, that the issue is very resonant and salient in many parts of south Wales, particularly the old coalfield.
The Law Commission report then allowed the Welsh Government to produce their White Paper in May last year. A full response is coming this month, and I hope that primary legislation will follow in this current Session of the Senedd. That is a good example in Wales of everybody working together. We also do it well here in the United Kingdom Parliament, or we can do it well, but I do think we need more moments such as that when sensible provisions, such as the ones I have outlined—and there are many more that the Law Commission has proposed—can be done.
Before I end, let me say that I am particularly pleased that the Government are going to act on a very important Law Commission recommendation on economic crime. We debated that legislation some weeks ago, and it is currently before the other place. That is another example of how we can use its work to great effect.
Finally, all the arguments we had about the law of nuisance were strengthened by the fact that the Government were acting on a Law Commission recommendation to codify the common law of nuisance and put it into statute. Those were the arguments that I deployed when I was at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is now law. There are many other examples I could give.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response, will pay more than lip service to what his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are saying. I know that he, as a supporter of the Law Commission and the  work of Sir Nicholas Green and all the team there, will want to shower praise on them, and rightly so. What I am looking for from my Government is a sense of commitment to making sure that we can create more good law, and that law reform is not a mere adjunct for the lawyers, but is at the heart of what it will take to make this economy grow and make this country more productive in the future. That, of course, is the key challenge for our Government and, indeed, future Governments.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for securing this important debate and, more broadly, for his contribution to this country’s criminal justice system as a lawyer, somebody who sat on the bench, a Justice Minister, a Solicitor General, and a distinguished and reforming Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. There is much from his tenure in that office of which he should rightly be proud. I also had the privilege and the pleasure, when an Under-Secretary of State for Justice, of serving under his leadership. I will also highlight at the outset, in response to one of his comments—and with more than a nod to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones)—that many things are done very well in Wales.
Let me start by offering my thanks on behalf of the Government to Sir Nicholas Green and his team for the hugely valuable work that the Law Commission undertakes, working with experts and the public to make sure the law in England and Wales remains modern, simple and fair. The sheer scale and variety of its contribution to law reform since it was established is extremely impressive, and it is difficult to find an area of the law that has not been improved in some way at some time by its work and its recommendations.
As my right hon. and learned Friend has set out, the Law Commission was created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of recommending reform to the law. It is a statutory arm’s length public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and its principal objective is to promote the reform of the law by reviewing given issues and making appropriate recommendations for change. In making those reform recommendations, its main aim is to seek to ensure that the law remains fair, modern, simple and cost-effective.
A number of specific types of reform are covered by the 1965 Act and have been enacted by the Law Commission through its work. They include the simplification and modernisation of the law through recommendations on codification, the removal of anomalies, and the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments. Its remit also covers the consolidation of legislation and the streamlining of overcomplicated law, as well as the formulation of new legal approaches to emerging high-profile social policy issues.
When determining what reforms to recommend, from time to time the Law Commission consults widely, taking views from judges, lawyers, Government Departments, the voluntary and business sectors and the general public, to help draw together new programmes of law reform that are then submitted to the Lord Chancellor for their approval before undertaking the work. It can also take on individual ad hoc projects referred by Government Departments.
Before the Law Commission decides to review an area of law reform, it considers them against certain criteria, including their importance or the extent to which the law is unsatisfactory and the potential benefits of reform. It considers whether the independent non-political organisation is the most suitable body to conduct a review of the law in that area. Lastly, it considers resources, so that full consideration is given to whether the valid experience of its commissioners and staff is engaged, whether funding is available and whether a project would meet the requirements of other work, if included as part of a programme.
It is fair to say that the Law Commission has a strong and well-founded reputation for considering immensely technically complex areas of the law, which can be significant for individuals and businesses. Its independence and commitment to open consultation is a key asset when trying to build consensus on sensitive issues across a broad range of different interests.
My right hon. and learned Friend rightly alluded to the economic value of the Law Commission’s work. In analysis undertaken by two independent economists in 2020, the figures are impressive. Its five largest projects over recent years have generated a net present value of more than £3 billion over 10 years. Even its most technical codification projects can save money. For example, the sentencing code reforms enacted in the Sentencing Act 2020 are estimated to generate savings in the justice system of up to £250 million over 10 years. The Electronic Trade Documents Bill, based on Law Commission recommendations, is an example of the Law Commission’s value and influence on Government business currently before Parliament. The impact assessment for the Bill estimates net benefits to UK businesses of £1.137 billion over 10 years when enacted. These are not insignificant sums.
Recommendations from at least four of its recent criminal law projects are currently in or about to be before Parliament. They include the protection of official data project, leading to new espionage offences in the National Security Bill; the modernising communications offences project, which has led to communications offences in the Online Safety Bill; the intimate image abuse project, alluded to by my right hon. and learned Friend, where the Government have publicly committed to partial implementation in respect of the sharing offences in the Online Safety Bill, reflecting the scope of that legislation; and the corporate criminal liability project, from which the Government have publicly committed to including a new “failure to prevent fraud” offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill.
On the implementation of the Law Commission’s work more generally, my right hon. and learned Friend has set out his concerns—if I can put it that way—that there can sometimes be unnecessary delays implementing its recommendations, and some may remain unenacted after publication. There are many reasons why some recommendations are not taken forward. Sometimes, there is a simple change of ministerial priorities or possibly, in recent years, of Ministers. There may be a lack of parliamentary time.
However, in addition to ministerial commitments, as he alluded to, a new parliamentary procedure was introduced for uncontroversial—if I may put it that way—consolidating Law Commission Bills. This procedure helps to reduce the time that this type of Bill spends on  the Floor of the House, by providing for certain stages to be carried out in Lords Committee. That makes perfect sense where a Bill consolidates existing provisions without making substantive changes, and where that consolidation has been done by the experts at the Law Commission to accurately reflect the existing law passed by Parliament.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Standing Order No. 59 and its procedures. I hear what he said, but any changes to Standing Orders would be a matter for the House to consider. He may wish to raise this matter with the Lord President of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), and I will ensure that her office is made aware of what he has said. The Procedure Committee may also wish to take a view on that. I am fortunate in that my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), is a member of that Committee, so I am sure he will be able, in that capacity, to ensure that it is aware of the views that my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed today.
Implementation rates can, of course, vary wildly year on year, depending on a number of factors. It is not unusual for implementation to happen some time after the publication of final reports. If we look at implementation over the last 10 years since 2013, 61 projects have been completed but only 13, or 21%, have been implemented, although 22, or 36%, have been accepted by Government either in full or in part. In the last five years since 2018, 27 projects have been completed, with only one, 4%, implemented in full or in part, although 12 reports have been accepted either in full or in part.
The more recent statistics are reflective of the fact that the last five years, as I think right hon. and hon. Members will agree, have certainly not been typical in parliamentary terms, in relation to the nature of what this House has had to deal with—hence the vast majority of projects that still require further consideration before they receive a Government response. Looking over a longer period, the overall figures on the implementation of the Commission’s work are very impressive. In fact, between 1965 and 2022, 64% of Law Commission law reform reports were implemented, in whole or in part, with only 13% rejected or 5% superseded. Therefore, in total, about two thirds of all Law Commission recommendations have been implemented to date, with only a small fraction being explicitly rejected by Government.
Full details of the implementation status of all Law Commission reports—whether they have been implemented, are still awaiting a response or are in the process of implementation—will be set out in the next edition of the Government’s implementation report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be published shortly. Until it is published, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that I cannot pre-empt the status of any particular project, but I know he will take a close interest in it when it is published.
Impressive though the overall implementation rate is, there is always room for improvement. One obvious and immediate opportunity might come out of the increased engagement that the Government will have in the formation of the Commission’s next, and 14th, programme of law  reform. As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware—he certainly should be aware—that is the result of the new funding and operating arrangements he introduced in 2020 as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. They create a new model to give the Commission better financial stability during the year so it can better prioritise resources on established projects, while seeking new work. To facilitate that, the Commission now receives 100% of its funding directly from the Ministry of Justice. My right hon. and learned Friend has ensured that the Commission’s foundations in respect of its resourcing are sound and provide a solid base from which it can move forward.
The majority of the work that the Commission undertakes is in programmes of work submitted for approval to the Secretary of State for Justice, as its sponsoring Minister, every four to five years. The Commission recently announced that it had decided to extend the timetable for finalising the content of the programme in view of the Government’s focus on priorities for the remainder of this Parliament. Given the time remaining, it simply does not consider that now is the right time to establish a new long-term programme of work that would cover the next five years and beyond.
However, thanks to the new arrangements that my right hon. and learned Friend put in place, the work on it current and 13th programme, launched in 2017, can continue at pace, including on projects such as smart contracts, electronic signatures, automated vehicles, intermediated securities and modernising trust law. Others focused on the way in which the law works for the individual or businesses, such as on surrogacy, residential leasehold, unfair terms in residential leasehold, disposing of the dead, simplifying the immigration rules, employment law hearing structures, administrative review, museum collections and liability for chancel repair. I think that gives a sense of the breadth of the work undertaken by the Commission.
I am happy to report that the new model has already proven extremely successful since it was introduced, suggesting a fair degree of foresight on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend, allowing the Commission the flexibility to undertake more ad hoc work for Government, as well as the capacity to continue to work on any projects from its current 13th programme that are either yet to be started or completed. It is currently working at full capacity and is likely to remain so for some time. Given that the new funding model will rely on increased and proactive engagement between the Department and the Commission during its planning and development, more thought can be given to the prospect of implementation during the process.
The Commission has already consulted publicly on ideas for the projects that the 14th programme might contain, in addition to its own ideas on themes such as emerging technologies, the law following our exit from the EU, the environment, legal resilience and other ideas for simplification or codification of the law. It has continued to refine and develop those and all other ideas received since then. That in itself should present a much clearer picture to the Government of the likelihood of eventual implementation when they ask the Commission to take forward a piece of work in the new programme.
Let me end by reassuring my right hon. and learned Friend—my friend, indeed— that implementation will be a closely considered part of the approval process for  the next programme of work, and that the Government still fully intend to agree a new programme with the Commission in due course, allowing it to build on its work to date and the strong foundations put in place by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.